tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 22:03:25 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC -meH
At 08:17 AM 1/28/2004, ngabwI' wrote:
[edit]
> >
> > 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."
maj. yabwIj DaHuvmoH.
> > 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."
agreed. The noun-noun is an unintended side effect, but there's no ambiguity.
> > 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.
DaH! yabwIj DaHuvHa'moH!
But this is secondary. I intend to cover this in response to a post from
Voragh.
>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. }}: )
majQa'! jIHvaD bIjangchu'.
Based on the Klingonska Akademien description, I've been nagged that using
a purpose clause with a comma in front of a sentence was common, but
sloppy, usage. Obviously, Dr. Okrand does it. {pItlh!}
>--ngabwI'
>Beginners' Grammarian,
>Klingon Language Institute
>http://kli.org/
>HovpoH 701097.4
Dar'Qang