tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 17:17:25 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
ja' ...Paul:
> The question at hand is that we have a handful of canon
> translations that appear to have purpose clauses that do not appear
> to have the appropriate pronomial prefix, or the appropriate
> indefinite subject suffix (/-lu'/), to match with the translation.
> These are:
>
> Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH (TKD)
> ngongmeH wa' DujDaq nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu' (S33)
> tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS (TKW)
>
> Although not used in a complete sentence, we also have:
>
> pe'meH taj (KGT)
>
> Did I miss any examples?
Yes.
ja'chuqmeH rojHom
This is the prototypical example. It is translated such that it
doesn't appear to be a "conjugated" verb; like the other similar
examples, it seems not to have a pronominal prefix at all.
ghojmeH taj
The lack of prefix is clear. "Knife for the purpose of learning." I
see it as stronger than an indefinite subject -- it's *no* subject.
It looks to me like the anomalous example we have is actually the one
*with* a prefix on a noun-modifying {-meH}:
qaSuchmeH 'eb
-- ghunchu'wI'