tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 10 06:24:34 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"?)

QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

My apologies for the late response to this thread, as I've spent the last 
week and a half on holidays. If I've missed a point that has been summed up 
in a later email, let me know.

ghItlhpu' Paul, ja':
>I'd like to sum up the discussion around purpose clauses, in a non-partisan 
>way.  So, until you see me say "Opinion" at the bottom, assume any mistakes 
>I make until then are just mistakes... :)

luq.

taH:
>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?

Voragh has picked these up already, I believe.

>It has been *proposed* (by QeS 'utlh, a Grammarian) that:

Okay, I take exception to your use of asterisks here. I've tried never to 
postulate that my theory is anything more than that - a theory. I'm not 
trying to overrule Okrand, and I thought I'd been particularly careful about 
describing this theory as my opinion, nothing more. If I have overstepped 
the mark on this count, accept my apologies. (That being said, the recent 
responses to this thread by ghunchu'wI' seem to show that I'm not the only 
Grammarian who subscribes to at least a similar theory to mine.)

jIghItlhpu', jIja':
>IMHO, {-meH}-clauses modifying nouns may, but don't need to, take 
>pronominal prefixes. {-meH}-clauses modifying verbs, on the other hand, 
>must take pronominal prefixes, hence examples like {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} 
>in which the expected {-lu'} is present; I couldn't find any example of a 
>{-meH}-clause modifying a verb that could conceivably be analysed as having 
>no pronominal prefixes.

mujangtaH Paul, ja':
>This is not specifically supported in canon (ie. there is no Okrandian 
>material that says this is to be the case;

Okrand also says nothing explicit in the grammatical rules about the use of 
two or more headers in one sentence, but there are several examples in canon 
usage of such phenomena. Just because Okrand doesn't specifically say a 
construction is possible does not mean we have to prohibit that 
construction, especially in the face of canon evidence that *indicates* (not 
"proves") its possibility.

taH:
>this has been proposed as a solution to the question of "what's
>going on in those previous examploes?")
>The original reason for this discussion was because Voragh proposed we term 
>the concept of "conjunction" with /rarmeH mu'/

Absolutely, and IIRC it was you who claimed it should be necessary to add 
pronominal prefixes, which is how we started this whole debate in the first 
place. I quote: "So even if we gloss "conjunction" as /rarmeH mu'/, one must 
be conscientious that they use the proper prefix on /rarmeH/ if the person 
doing the connecting is first- or second-person..." (Paul, "Re: 
"conjunction"?", 22:14.40, Dec 29 2006).

>OPINION:
>While the theory that purpose clauses on nouns have an implied indefinite 
>subject (when all else is lacking) is great for *explaining* the canon -- 
>although I'd then argue that the /tlhutlhmeH/ example might lay claim that 
>the implications are broader than just for purpose noun clauses -- I have 
>trouble using this hypothesis for *writing* new Klingon.

All language is based upon using rules to extrapolate from what you know to 
producing a sentence that may never have been written before. "The sultan's 
hippos weren't particularly violent to you today, Mr. President", for 
example. It just so happens that a large number of the rules of Klingon 
aren't explicitly stated. I believe this is one of those rules.

>So for example, if we had a canon example, /rarmeH mu' yIlo'/ "Use a 
>conjunction", the hypothesis would hold.

Yet again, how would you interpret {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?}? Why 
don't you see this as a canon example of the sort you're talking about? It's 
exactly the example that you say you're looking for. I refuse to ignore it 
as a mistake on Okrand's part.

>But since *we* are writing this, I'm not sure we can assume the hypothesis
>is correct, and thus we should be sure we use the proper pronomial prefix
>or indefinite subject suffix, /rarlu'meH mu' yIlo'/.

If that's what you want to do, feel free. You will certainly be understood. 
Nevertheless, I feel I have perfectly sufficient support from canon examples 
to happily use {rarmeH mu' yIlo'}.

>However, since it is unwieldy to define a term that then changes based on 
>usage,

If you use {rarlu'meH mu'}, the term still won't change.

>it seems more... convenient (for lack of a better term) to craft a noun 
>phrase that does NOT change on usage,

Why, may I ask? What would be wrong with having a noun phrase that *does* 
change according to usage? (Aside from the Anglocentric desire to have a 
simple noun phrase in Klingon corresponding to a simple noun phrase in 
English, a goal which I personally see as futile at best, I can think of no 
other reason.)

>such as /rarbogh mu'/ -- which remains the same if you're saying /rarbogh 
>mu' yIlo'/ or /mu'tlhegh DararmeH rarbogh mu' Dalo'nIS/...

A {rarbogh mu'} could be anything; the word {puq} in {voDleH puq mIv} could 
be viewed as a {rarbogh mu'}, as it provides a connection between {voDleH} 
and {mIv}. A {rarmeH mu'} is more explicitly a word whose *purpose* is 
connecting. Semantically, I think {rarmeH mu'} (or a variant, if you wish) 
is more proper.

>That's my argument in a nutshell, all circling back to the original point 
>-- what do we call a conjunction?  :)

{rarmeH mu'}, {rarbogh mu'} and {rarwI'} might all be understood in context. 
I would use {rarmeH mu'}.

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute


not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
     - Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Fresh jobs daily. Stop waiting for the newspaper. Search Now! 
www.seek.com.au 
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=757263760&_r=Hotmail_EndText_Dec06&_m=EXT

Back to archive top level