tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 17:17:25 2007

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:

> 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'





Back to archive top level