tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 08:10:00 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC -meH

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dar'Qang" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:23 AM
Subject: KLBC: -meH


> At 01:51 PM 1/25/2004, ngabwI' wrote:
>
> > > Dar'Qang:
> > > Another thing I'm not sure about regarding '-meH is whether or not the
> > > resulting clause can modify a phrase, or if the construction can only
be
> > > used to modify a noun or a verb.
> >
> > ngabwI':
> >I'm not sure I get your meaning. A {-bogh} phrase, collectively, can
replace
> >a noun, so I don't see anything wrong with a {-meH} phrase "modifying" a
> >{-bogh} phrase:
> >{HoHmeH DIngbogh jan} "A spinning machine for killing"
> >would not be misunderstood. (Was that your question?)
>
> Dar'Qang:
> I'll try to clarify what I'm trying to understand about -meH.
>
> My question is, how strictly to interpret the phrase 'noun
> or verb'?
>
> I'll try an example to explain.  Suppose I am reading a book in
> order to learn something about the author's style.  I'll just
> use <*Doch> for author's style. :)  So <*Doch vIghojmeH> "In
> order to learn the author's style" and <paq vIlaD> "I read the
> book".
>
> I expect that I could write: <*Doch vIghojmeH, paq vIlaD> and be
> understood.  But the -meH verb doesn't modify either a noun or
> a verb, but a sentence-piece.  Is the whole sentence understood
> because it is correct Klingon, or because it is implicitly
> relying on DIvI' Hol syntax?

{DaH jIyajchu'!} OK, I get it now.
{Doch vIghojmeH, paq vIlaD} is perfectly acceptable. In this case, the
{-meH} clause *is* modifying a verb, {laD}. The presence or absence of the
object of {laD} has no effect whatsoever on what the {-meH} clause is
modifying:
{Doch vIghojmeH, paq vIlaD} "I read the book in order to learn the author's
style"
{Doch vIghojmeH, vIlaD} "I read it in order to learn the author's style."
{Doch vIghojmeH, jIlaD} "I read in order to learn the author's style."

> Dar'Qang:
> If OTOH one uses the -meH phrase to modify the verb, that *does*
> capture the meaning:  "I  for-the-purpose-of-learning-the-style-read the
> book."  I like
> this, the way it modifies the action.  But the syntax doesn't
> seem to work: <paq *Doch vIghojmeH vIlaD>.  The two nouns are
> placed together, creating a confusing ambiguity.

{bIlugh} But there's no ambiguity here. {paq Doch vIghojmeH, vIlaD} means
only "I order to learn the book's author's style, I read it."

> Dar'Qang:
> If one were to write <*Doch vIghojmeH paq vIlaD>, that isn't the
> original meaning. I would interpret it as "I read the
> for-the-purpose-of-learning-the-style-book."  This suggests
> that the topic of the book is the author's style.

{jIQoch} The sentence above says nothing about the topic of the book, only
the purpose for which it is being read.

Some canon that may help to illustrate, off the top of my head:
{jagh DajeymeH, nIteb yISuvrup} "To defeat the enemy, be ready to fight
alone." PK
{qa' wIje'meH, maSuv} "We fight to enrich the spirit" TKW, pg 7
{yIn DayajmeH, 'oy' yISIQ} "To understand life, endure pain" TKW, pg 43.
{bIQapqu'meH, tar DaSop 'e' DatIvnIS} "To really succeed, you must enjoy
eating poison" TKW, pg 73
{HIq DaSammeH, tach yI'el!} "To find ale, go into a bar." TKW, pg 181.

I think the last three probably speak more to your question, because of the
object noun immediately following the {-meH} clause.

If any of this isn't clear, or I've missed your point entirely, let me know,
and I'll try again. }}: )

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701097.4

Back to archive top level