tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 04 23:43:00 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
- From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 01:40:30 -0600
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Thread-index: AccwdnPG+gUwjMrQR/66EiLA35qWDQAJNXhA
> > 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.
>
> Is this in the KGT? I didn't see it. Also, (more importantly, IMHO), is
> it used in a sentence? /ghojmeH taj/ has the same problem as /pe'meH taj/
> if it's not used in a sentence; as a fragment, I don't think we can infer
> whether or not it would properly have a proper prefix when used in a full
> contextual sentence (ie. we have no evidence its proper use wouldn't be
> something like /DaghojmeH taj Dalo'nIS/)
But since we are adults, the "you" in that sentence wouldn't be learning. "You" is simply using a
knife that was designed for learning. Anybody in general would use that knife for learning (at a
younger age).
> It looks to me like the anomalous example we have is actually the one
> *with* a prefix on a noun-modifying {-meH}:
>
> qaSuchmeH 'eb
Here, the opportunity for visiting does apply to specific people (I/you). It is not a generic
opportunity for just anybody to use.
DloraH