tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 14 12:28:31 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day: purpose clause
A purely stylistic comment: In short sentences with a subordinate {-meH}
clause, especially when the subject of both clauses is the same, I think it
sounds better - and a bit more Okrandian - to put the subject in the second
(main) clause:
peHruS wrote:
: Ha'DIbaH pe'meH ghot, taj lo'.
: In order to cut the meat, the person uses a knife.
Literally: "In order for the person to cut the meat, s/he uses a knife."
Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj lo' ghot.
The person uses a knife to cut the meat.
: loD chopmeH targh, Ho'Du' lo'.
: In order for the dog* to bite the man, it uses teeth.
loD chopmeH Ho'Du' lo' targh.
The targ uses (its) teeth to bite the man.
: be' luqIpmeH puqpu', naQmey lo'.
: The child uses a stick to hit the woman. [sic!]
Literally: "In order for the children to hit the woman, they use sticks."
be' luqIpmeH naQmey lo' puqpu'.
The children use sticks to hit the woman.
Hmm... Notice how Klingon and English word orders are mirror images of each
other. Okrand would be pleased!
Since the clauses are short with no change in subject, the reader can easily
keep them both in mind without getting confused. OTOH if the {-meH} clause is
long and complicated - or there are several dependent clauses linked in a long,
complex sentence - then I would probably keep the subject with its {-meH}
clause in the interest of clarity.
YMMV.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons