tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 29 13:40:53 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "conjunction"?
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Steven Boozer wrote:
> You may be right. All our evidence for {muv} imply joining a group of people:
I'll be printing this out and putting it on a wall. ;)
> Your TKD example can be analyzed two ways. As a purpose clause:
>
> ja'chuqmeH, rojHom neH jaghla'.
> In order to confer, the enemy commander wishes a truce.
>
> or as a purpose noun:
>
> [ja'chuqmeH rojHom] neH jaghla'.
> The enemy commander wishes a truce-for-confering.
>
> where {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} is a sub-class of {rojHom} "truce, temporary
> peace" which is itself a type of {roj} "peace".
I don't think the distinction is applicable to the point I was attempting
to make. A purpose noun clause, like /ja'chuqmeH rojHom/ is distinctly
different from a relative clause, like */ja'chuqbogh rojHom/, because with
purpose clauses, the subject of the verb part is rarely, if ever, the noun
being modified. I think the example you quote actually bear this out
fairly consistently:
> {QongmeH Duj} "[cryogenic] sleeper ship":
The /Duj/ is not what is sleeping...
> {ngongmeH Duj} "experimental ship, prototype":
The ship is not what is experimenting...
> {chenmoHlu'meH Daq} "construction site":
The site is not constructing...
> and the specific {qaSuchmeH 'eb} "the opportunity (for me) to visit you":
>
> jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb
> I was too late to visit you.
> ("Because I'm very late, the opportunity to visit you has escaped.")
> (st.k 1/98)
>
> which is clearly the object of the verb {nargh}. (It also shows that the
> verb in a purpose noun can be fully conjugated as to subject and
> object.) If this were an ordinary purpose clause, you would have to
> rewrite this. E.g.:
I think you meant "clearly the subject of the verb (nargh)" :)
But this even further demonstrates my point -- the subject of the /-meH/
clause in /qaSuchmeH 'eb/ is clearly NOT the /'eb/...
The distinction becomes important when talking about a conjunction itself:
cha' mu'tlhegh Dararchugh, rarbogh mu' yIlo'.
If you want to connect two sentences, use the word-which-connects
("conjunction").
Using a consistent purpose noun phrase/clause becomes problematic:
cha' mu'tlhegh Dararchugh, *rarmeH mu' yI'lo'.
If you want to connect two sentences, use the word for (him/her/it/they
to) connect.
What's the subject of /rarmeH/ in this case? To be grammatically correct,
you'd probably want /DararmeH/, so you'd get "Use the word for you to
connect them" -- but that doesn't really give you any guidance as to what
kind of word.
cha' mu'tlhegh vIrarlaHmeH mu' vIneH. mu' nuq vIlo'?
I need a word so I can connect two sentences. What word do I use?
rarbogh mu' yIwIv. <<'ej>> yIlo'.
Choose a word-which-connects (conjunction). Use /'ej/.
This isn't to say that I think /rarmeH mu'/ is "wrong", I just don't think
it's a useful way to consistently describe the concept. Compare, for
example:
rarbogh mu' 'oH <<'ej>>'e'.
/'ej/ is a word which connects (things).
rarmeH mu' 'oH <<'ej>>'e'.
/'ej/ is a word for connecting.
/'ej/ is a word for (him/her/it/them) to connect (things).
I think the construct /rarbogh mu'/ is a little better, because it's
something you can kinda just "drop in"; since the subject of /rarbogh/ is
always /mu'/, and that's basically always an "it", you don't have to worry
about the prefix... With /rarmeH mu'/, I think you have to be care to
make sure your verb prefixes are straight, because grammatically, you
might really need to be changing it to /DararmeH mu'/ if you're talking to
someone about conjunctions...
Does that make any sense? The differentiation is so slight, I hope my
perspective is clear.
...Paul
** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}