tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 29 07:58:37 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: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: KLBC -meH

> Dar'Qang:
> Specifically, the example is {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}, translated in the
example
> as "a truce in order to confer".  I have taken this example as indicating
> that a purpose clause can be directly used to modify a noun.  I interpret
> {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} as also identically meaning "a truce whose purpose is
> to confer."  (much like a sort-of -bogh clause).

OK, I think I see what's going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong...
The example given above, {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} "truce in order to confer", is
an example of a {-meH} "clause" "modifying" a noun, right? Much like
{ghojmeH taj} "boy's knife", lit. "learning knife" (KCD), {vutmeH 'un}
"cooking pot" (KGT, pg 27), and {SuvwI' DevmeH paq} "A Warrior's Guide",
lit. "Book for leading warriors" (Title page of TKW).

All of these are examples of "oblique" {-meH} usage: it's okay to say
something like {leSmeH pa'} "resting room", "break room", or {HoHmeH jan}
"Killing device". In cases like these, where the subject of the purpose
clause is not explicitly stated, but rather understood as general, a {-meH}
clause *can* "modify" a noun, as you were getting at. (I think)

When you stated that the topic of the book in {*Doch vIghojmeH paq vIlaD}
was the author's style, that's where you lost me. To me, if {*Doch
vIghojmeH} were to "modify" the noun {paq}, that would suggest that the book
was written specifically for *you*, suited to *your* tastes, in order for
*you* to learn the author's style. But now, I think I see where you're
coming from. If you wanted to suggest that the purpose of the book was to
learn the author's style, I would suggest {*Doch ghojmeH paq vIlaD} "I read
the 'author's-style-learning-book'".

When a {-meH} clause functions as a subordinate clause in a sentence, (I X
in order to Y) it will usually include an indication of a subject. When it
functions as a "modifier" for a noun, it will drop that indicator. There are
some exceptions to this, but it functions well as a rule of thumb.

I think we're finally hitting a single target, as it were.
If you'll indulge me, let me give you a couple of things to try to
translate, using {-meH} clauses. You don't have to do this, it's only if you
want the practice, and it will help me to see if I'm explaining this all
correctly.
Translate the following into Klingon:
"repair station" (use either {Daq}"place" or {yaH}"duty station")
"computer repair station"
"I work at the computer repair station"
"I have to leave in order to work" (remember that *you* are the one working)
Extra credit:
"I have to leave in order to work at the computer repair station."

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701101.5

Back to archive top level