tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 30 23:40:07 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)

...Paul ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, QeS 'utlh wrote:
> How do you propose to interpret it, then? My theory - that there is no
> prefix - deals with this example quite satisfactorily, and resolves the
> problems that would be created by applying the rule of {rom}.

All my examples and thoughts basically boiled down to a few points:

1.  Purpose clauses that modify the verb in a sentence (or the concept of 
the sentence as a whole) appear before the object of the sentence, despite 
the fact that Okrand said it should precede the verb it is modifying.

2.  Because of point #1, in many cases it is ambiguous as to whether or 
not a purpose clause before an object noun is a purpose noun clause.

3.  Because of point #2, one cannot say that "[purpose] clauses modifying 
nouns may, but don't need to, take pronomial prefixes..." but "modifying 
verbs... must take pronomial prefixes."

I think we're in agreement on points #1 and #2, and I think we can 
probably agree on #3 from a logical sense -- recognizing that it doesn't 
answer the question of "what's going on with some of these examples?"

I'm of two minds of how to approach things.  On the one side, I take 
Okrand as fallible, as we all are, and that in some of the 'apparently 
wrong' examples, they are what they are -- 'wrong'.  /Dochvetlh DIlmeH 
Huch 'ar DaneH/ really should use /vIDIlmeH/ or /DIllu'meH/.  /ngongmeH 
wa' DujDaq/ should really be /ngonglu'meH/ to match the indefinite subject 
found later in the sentence.

The other option is that Okrand's description of the rules of grammar are 
faulty, or at the least, incomplete.  If this is the case, I agree with 
you that pronomial prefixes are optional when the subject is indefinite -- 
but I'm not sure I'd limit it to just when the clauses are modifying 
nouns -- because many of the examples we have are ambiguous in that 
regard.

The /ngongmeH wa' DujDaq/ example is explicitly a purpose noun clause, 
only because the translation is given as "on one experimental ship" (as 
opposed to the phrasing, "on one ship in order to experiment").  So that 
supports your theory, that this works on noun-modifying purpose clauses.

But in /Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH/, I'd argue that the purpose 
clause is actually modifying the verb, not the noun /Huch 'ar/.  I'd argue 
this would imply the "no prefix for indefinite subject" rule could be 
equally applied to all purpose clauses.  I even have further backing for 
this one with /tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS/.

So, we have two options:  Okrand made three mistakes with prefixes and/or 
/-lu'/ suffixes in the purpose clauses we've looked at...  Or, purpose 
clauses (of all kinds) can be used without prefixes or the /-lu'/ suffix 
and have an implicit indefinite subject (unless context indicates, in 
actuality, a 0-prefix).

My preference?  Okrand's made mistakes in his translations.  Just because 
I'm a fan of consistency.  Maybe we chalk the examples up to "clipped 
Klingon"...

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
            If it's not the same, it should be different.

Back to archive top level