tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 31 12:43:08 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, Alan Anderson wrote:
> 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.

I say "despite" because in other places where Okrand says something 
"precedes" something, it doesn't convey the "slush" of "...and anything 
else that might be before it".  So I see "precedes the noun or verb" and 
my expectation is that it should *immediately* precede the noun or verb. 
I think we have evidence this isn't exactly the case.  QED, the 
description of where purpose clauses are located is not completely 
accurate.

As for my statement, I can amend it simply by adding "(if there is one)" 
after the phrase "object of the sentence".  I didn't bother, because in 
that scenario, the purpose clause inarguably modifies the verb.

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

Sure.  But most of the examples we're looking at, there aren't any other 
clauses to deal with, just the purpose clause and the verb.

> 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.

I've got no problem with that, either, IFF one accepts that there is an 
implied indefinite subject.  What I'm saying is that this example makes 
two assumptions, not just one -- it assumes indefinite subject implication 
is acceptable, and it assumes that the purpose clause is modifying the 
object noun, not the verb.

If we have to make two assumptions about an example, I find it difficult 
to use it as evidence for one hypothesis (that implied indefinite subjects 
are okay for purpose noun clauses) and not for another (that implied 
indefinite subjects are okay for purpose clauses modifying verbs).

>> But in /Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH/, I'd argue that the
>
> 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.

That's my whole point, though; it makes just as much sense to call it a 
mistake as it does to use it as a definitive example of another 
hypothesis.

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

The only reason it makes "more sense", I think, is because it limits the 
adjustment to the rules of grammar -- rather than making the leap to say 
"prefixes are optional for all purpose clauses", you're making the 
half-leap to say "prefixes are optional for purpose noun clauses".  And 
I'd be willing to accept that "compromise", except that it doesn't answer 
the question posed by:

>> 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.

I'm reluctant to ignore the example for the purposes of "proving" a 
hypothesis.

>> 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.

...ignoring the /tlhutlhmeH/ example.  Convenient.

>> 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.

Hey, I'm totally with you on that -- except that we're forced to do one of 
the two.  After all, the proposal that purpose noun clauses do not need 
prefixes and assume an indefinite subject as a result IS expanding the 
rules of grammar.  If we do not accept that as a possibility, the only way 
to explain the examples we have is to assume the canon examples are 
mistaken.

Now, given that Okrand has as much said that the rules of grammar are 
likely incomplete, we can assume the canon examples are, in fact, 
legitimate.  So we're tasked with redefining how purpose clauses work.  We 
have several examples where the purpose clause has no prefix, no /-lu'/ 
suffix, but apparently assumes an indefinite subject.  To explain this, a 
rule was posited that this is acceptable for purpose noun clauses, and on 
the surface, this fits, because in all the examples, the clause appears 
before a noun.

What I claim is that the rules for purpose clauses modifying verbs is not 
exactly correct in TKD, and cited evidence that purpose clauses modifying 
verbs appear before the direct object (at the very least).  I don't think 
we're in disagreement here.  However, this creates a dilemma, because it 
creates ambiguity as to whether or not a purpose clause appearing before a 
noun in the direct object position is actually modifying the noun or the 
verb.

Given that ambiguity, and given the /tlhutlhmeH/ example (which I believe 
'proves the ambiguity'), can we safely say that the implied indefinite 
subject rule ONLY applies to purpose noun clauses?  To me, this leaves us 
with two possibilities, one, that the IIS rule can apply in either case 
(which then explains *all* the canon, even in the ambiguous cases), or 
two, the IIS rule is entirely invalid and the three canon examples are in 
error.

The bigger concern is if a "Grammarian" presents this as truth or not.  If 
someone asks, I would be more inclined to tell people to be accurate.  The 
IIS theory explains the canon, but when someone is asking how to do 
something themselves, I'd rather not present the theory as a rule to 
follow.  If someone asks, "Is /DIllu'meH nuq DaneH/ correct?" I don't want 
someone saying, "the /-lu'/ is redundant because..."  We can argue, does 
the IIS theory apply to just noun-modifying purpose clauses or to all of 
its uses, until the cows come home; until Okrand says one way or the 
other (or perhaps we get a good body of new "evidence" to agree on), it's 
just a theory.

...Paul

          ** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
   ** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
     "Understanding human needs is half the job of meeting them"
                         -- Adlai Stevenson

Back to archive top level