tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 12 07:58:55 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: taH (was Re: mu' lo' QaQ 'oSbogh mu'tlheghmey)

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

>From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]> >I don't see >how <DuHIvmeH lol 
>SuvwI'> is any less ambiguous than ><DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol ghaH>.  You're 
>going from "In order >for the warrior to attack you, he is in a stance" to 
>"In >order that he attacks you, the warrior is in a stance."
>
>While your interpretation is correct, I'd intended the {-meH} clause as a 
>"subjectless" one. I was under the impression that {-meH} clauses didn't 
>necessarily need subjects: in {ghojmeH taj}, the dagger isn't doing any 
>learning; there's no explicit subject for the verb {ghojmeH}. In the same 
>way, I didn't intend {DuHIvmeH} to mean "in order that *he* attacks you", 
>but "in order *to* attack you".

The meaning of {Du-} includes a first-person singular subject.  You can't 
have the object without the subject.  For your meaning, use {DaHIvlu'meH} 
"in order that you are attacked."

The canon has supported the notion that {-meH} clauses modifying nouns do 
not use other affixes, and those modifying verbs (or sentences) do.  Thus, 
{ghojmeH taj} "knife for learning," but {DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol ghaH} "In order 
that the warrior attack you, he is in a stance."

One reason why this might seem an odd sentence is because the subject is 
given explicitly the first time it's used, in the purpose clause, and only 
as a pronoun the second time.  This is normal in Klingon (despite the 
occasional complaint by Klingonists).  If we were to translate into more 
colloquial English, we would say, "The warrior is in a stance in order to 
attack you."  Lo!  This is exactly what Okrand wrote.

> >Your suggestion is shorter, but the same effect can be >obtained by 
><DuHIvmeH SuvwI', lol>.  I wonder if MO stuck >the <ghaH> in there so it 
>wouldn't look like the <lol> was >acting adjectivally on <SuvwI'>?
>
>If {lol} was adjectival in {DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol}, the whole thing would 
>just be a sentence fragment: "In order that the in-a-stance warrior attacks 
>you." There's no main clause, so there wouldn't be a need for {ghaH}.

You don't just use pronouns because you NEED them.  You use them to make 
your sentences easier to understand.  Eliding pronouns is optional.  Using 
pronouns instead of nouns is common for all but the first noun.  Both of 
these facts is mentioned in TKD, pp. 61-62.

SuStel
Stardate 4448.0

_________________________________________________________________
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN 
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/

Back to archive top level