tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 20 17:33:07 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Grammar Highlight Each Day: purpose clause



ja' Voragh:
>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:

jIQochchu' je jIH.  It might be more a matter of style than of grammar, but
I have to insist that *I* find it much better to have a noun appear at the
first opportunity.  There's also a good argument for considering
"Okrandian" usage to put the noun first, or even in *both* places.  In
section 6.2.1 "Compound sentences", TKD says that repeating the noun is the
"fullest form" of Klingon, but that the second appearance may be replaced
by a pronoun or left out completely if context permits.  At the end of
section 6.2.4 "Purpose clauses", it again speaks of replacing or dropping
the *second* of two identical nouns.

>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."

That's exactly right.  It's clear and unambiguous (with perhaps a teeny bit
of possible fuzziness surrounding the subject of the verb {lo'} if there is
additional context that might imply someone else has the knife).

>  Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj lo' ghot.
>  The person uses a knife to cut the meat.

My first reading of this is "In order for the knife to cut the animal, a
person uses it."  The idea is much less clear than it could be.  All of
your further examples have exactly the same problem, with the object of the
second verb being very easily misinterpreted as the subject of the first.

>  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!

I don't know why you think that.  Klingon obviously wasn't designed to be
"mirror English".

>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.

Clarity isn't explicitly one of the main virtues to keep in mind when
speaking Klingon, but I don't understand why you object to what seems to be
a natural idea of presenting a noun at the first opportunity.  The word
order you propose loses clarity in a significant way, with the missing
subject opening a hole for another noun to get inadvertently sucked up into
the clause.

>YMMV.

MMDV.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh




Back to archive top level