tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 31 11:30:12 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"?)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' ...Paul:

> 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.

"despite"?

If there is an object, it is invariably before the verb, so your  
"point #1" puts the purpose clause before the verb exactly as TKD  
says it should be.  However, your statement doesn't account  
explicitly for the possibility that there is no object.

(Note that when TKD speaks of a "verb" when describing complex  
sentences, it is often possible -- and reasonable -- to substitute  
the term "clause".)

> 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/.

I don't see anything wrong with this one as it stands.  The "that  
thing's to-pay-for money" interpretation works perfectly for me.

> /ngongmeH wa' DujDaq/ should really be /ngonglu'meH/ to match the  
> indefinite subject found later in the sentence.

The verbs aren't being used in the same way or with the same object,  
so I don't see any reason for them to "match".  It looks perfectly  
correct to me as it is:  "experimental ship" is {ngongmeH Duj}.  The  
only potential oddness is finding the counting number immediately  
before the noun instead of before the complete phrase.

> 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,...

Rest assured that this is indeed the case.  TKD says so explicitly.

> 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.

The only reason I can see to argue for {DIlmeH} to modify {DaneH} is  
so you can call it support for your theory.  I believe it makes at  
least as much sense to call it a mistake and say it should have a  
{vI-} prefix.

I believe it makes *more* sense to consider it to be an example of  
correct grammar and interpret {DIlmeH Huch} as "payment money".

> I even have further backing for this one with /tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb  
> qaq law' bIQ qaq puS/.

Comparative sentences are exceptional.  I am reluctant to use one as  
support for other grammar.  Specifically, I would argue that there is  
no main verb that can be modified by a purpose clause.

> 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).

There is a third option:  recognize that those three purpose clauses  
are not modifying verbs, and that they thus say nothing about whether  
verb-modifying purpose clauses require prefixes.

> 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"...

I prefer to choose the interpretation which requires neither assuming  
canon to be mistaken nor expanding rules of grammar to encompass  
unattested constructions.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level