tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 31 18:28:13 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:

> ...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.

I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.  "Purpose clauses  
precede what they modify" *is* completely accurate.  I see that it  
does not exactly meet your expectation, since what you expect is more  
than what TKD says.  But isn't that because your expectation *added*  
something, and not because the statement in TKD is missing information?

>> 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.

I didn't ignore it.  I explicitly rejected it as a relevant example,  
and I explained why:  a law'/puS comparative construction doesn't  
have a main verb, so it doesn't apply to a discussion about purpose  
clauses which modify the main verb of the sentence.  I do not  
consider it ambiguous; the only straightforward interpretation is  
that it modifies the noun(s).  The not-so-straightforward  
interpretation is that it modifies the entire law'/puS in some  
exceptional way.  We already have evidence of such exceptional  
grammar in the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} example.   
It seems to me that the only unreasonable interpretation is that it  
modifies the verb, since "the verb" is not a concept I believe  
applies well to a law'/puS construction.

>> 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.

I only see one assumption: a verb-meH modifying a noun may be a bare  
verb with no subject or object.  This assumption is well supported by  
canon examples.  The other "assumption" you state seems to be such an  
obvious interpretation of the sentence that I would hardly call it an  
assumption at all.  In order for it to be interpreted differently,  
one must also assume either that the sentence is grammatically  
incorrect (which makes it rather unsuitable as support for a given  
point) or that it is unique evidence for a hitherto unwritten  
grammatical feature.

I know, I know -- if you choose several such examples, applying that  
same single assumption can make them all support the novel  
grammatical feature.  But I prefer the simpler conclusion: the  
sentences are correct and do not imply anything special about verb- 
modifying purpose clauses.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level