[102078] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Nov 9 08:59:08 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:58:42 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKuG2Y8BeG9Qz7Xc+yjw=jChPi9YtaUB8Z6Xu5B0=sNwA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4727940092508557925==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DC7BE37-3867-40BF-8BE5-21D6D1F8426C"
--Apple-Mail=_0DC7BE37-3867-40BF-8BE5-21D6D1F8426C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
More on {-meH}=E2=80=A6
I remember having great difficulty fully grasping the proper use of =
{-meH}. It took a long time to iron out the details (and a lot of =
patience on the part of those explaining it to me). There are a couple =
of tidbits I didn=E2=80=99t remember to include in the last response to =
this message:
Klingon technically lacks an infinitive form of the verb. The prefix =
implies a subject and perhaps a direct object, and all verbs have a =
prefix, since null is a prefix, and a true infinitive form would not =
have a subject or object. Meanwhile, the canon term {ghojmeH taj} has =
been discussed at great length and it=E2=80=99s been generally agreed =
that a {-meH} clause modifying a noun is as close to an infinitive form =
as you=E2=80=99ll see in Klingon.
Yes, you can say that {ghojmeH} has a null prefix, but it=E2=80=99s a =
bit of a stretch to insist that it means =E2=80=9Can =
in-order-that-he/she/it/they-learn(s) knife=E2=80=9D. The meaning is =
closer to =E2=80=9Ca to-learn knife=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Can =
in-order-to-learn knife=E2=80=9D. We might even call it a =E2=80=9Clearnin=
g knife=E2=80=9D, keeping in mind that we don=E2=80=99t suggest the =
knife itself is learning anything.
TKD doesn=E2=80=99t say anything about any difference between a {-meH} =
clause modifying a noun vs. modifying a verb, but consider what is =
involved in parsing each of these. If a {-meH} clause had its own time =
stamp, adverbials, locatives, explicit direct object or explicit subject =
when it precedes and modifies a noun, the resulting sentence would be =
quite a challenge to parse, especially if the noun being modified were =
the subject of another verb.
Simplicity becomes paramount when a verb with {-meH} modifies a noun =
that already has another role in the main clause. So, we tend to see =
single-word {-meH} clauses modifying nouns. You might see other suffixes =
on the {-meH} verb, as in {ja=E2=80=99chuqmeH rojHom}, but you won=E2=80=99=
t typically see a prefix and you can count on not having any nouns or =
chuvmey grammatically connected to the {-meH} verb.
{-meH} clauses modifying verbs are another matter entirely, since we are =
told in TKD that the {-meH} clause precedes the entire main clause. With =
the possible exception of a noun ambiguously placed as subject of the =
{-meH} clause and/or object of the main clause, it becomes pretty simple =
to figure out which words belong to which clause, so there is less need =
to Keep It Simple when it comes to forming the dependent {-meH} clause =
modifying the main clause.
I=E2=80=99d like to acknowledge SuStel on a related topic. When I was =
thrashing about, trying to learn about {-meH} and other Type 9-suffixed =
dependent clauses, I overgeneralized and suggested that all Type 9 =
dependent clauses should precede the main clause. SuStel pointed out my =
egregious error. As a matter of style, I still prefer dependent clauses =
to precede main clauses simply because I find this easier to parse and =
more consistent with the Klingon tendency to put all the descriptive =
environment for a main verb first, and finish with the main verb like a =
punch line to a joke, resolving all that comes before it, but this =
suggestion is completely wrong in terms of being any kind of actual rule =
in the language. TKD explicitly shows many examples of several other =
Type 9 suffix based clauses placed before or after the main clause. =
Okrand makes it clear that it doesn=E2=80=99t matter whether it precedes =
or follows the main clause.
The Addendum, unfortunately, makes no statement one way or the other on =
placement of the newer Type 9 based clause described there. The only =
Type 9 based clause that we are told must precede the main clause is =
{-meH}.
While contemplating this, it occurs to me that I don=E2=80=99t remember =
any examples of Type 9 based clauses that have their own Type 9 based =
clause=E2=80=A6 a dependent clause depending on another dependent =
clause. There don=E2=80=99t seem to be any explicit rules against it, =
though I can=E2=80=99t imagine that any examples of such wouldn=E2=80=99t =
be butt-ugly monsters.
For that matter, I don=E2=80=99t remember seeing any main clauses with =
multiple Type 9 based dependent clauses. Again, I suspect the result =
would be a mess.
Klingon doesn=E2=80=99t allow more than one suffix of a single Type on a =
noun or a verb. Essentially, there is a slot for each Type available for =
each noun and verb, and one and only one suffix of that type can fit in =
that slot.
Is there a similar slot for dependent clauses? Are we limited to one? =
We=E2=80=99ve been shown that there is no single slot for adverbials; we =
can have more than one. If we are allowed to use multiple Type 9 =
dependent clauses, would they require a conjunction between them? If we =
are required to use a conjunction, would that still be the case if one =
clause preceded the main clause and the other followed it?
There are many unanswered questions about Klingon grammar remaining to =
us, after all these years, though I suggest that even if we are allowed =
these things, Okrand has given us the advice that Klingons prefer to =
split complex ideas into multiple, simpler sentences, rather than pile =
too much into one. This principle probably explains why we don=E2=80=99t =
have examples of multiple Type 9 dependent clauses connected to other =
Type 9 dependent clauses, or have examples of multiple Type 9 dependent =
clauses pointing to the same main clause.
jajlIj yItIv.
poH jorwI=E2=80=99 vIchu=E2=80=99pu'=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99?
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:57 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> I was reading the purpose clauses and the following questions came =
up,making me feel like a bird of prey lost in a nebula..
>=20
> 1. lets consider the following example :
>=20
> ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la' The enemy commander wishes a truce (in =
order) to confer.
>=20
> why do we say {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'} instead of {rojHom =
ja'chuqmeH neH jagh la'} ?
>=20
> 2. jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH They are searching for the enemy in =
order to kill him/her.
>=20
> could we say {jagh luHoHtaHmeH jagh lunejtaH} meaning <<they are =
searching for the enemy,for the purpose of killing him>> ?
>=20
> 3. the definition of a purpose clause is verb plus {-meH},or verb plus =
{-meH} plus noun,or noun plus verb plus {-meH} ?
>=20
> HQ 7.3, p.6, Sept. 1998 (as i read in boQwI') would certainly come in =
handy right now.. Just to think that there is a HolQeD article =
explaining all this -an article I cannot have- makes feel like a dog =
whose food is placed just where its leash ends !
>=20
> cpt qunnoQ
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_0DC7BE37-3867-40BF-8BE5-21D6D1F8426C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">More on {-meH}=E2=80=A6</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I remember having great =
difficulty fully grasping the proper use of {-meH}. It took a long time =
to iron out the details (and a lot of patience on the part of those =
explaining it to me). There are a couple of tidbits I didn=E2=80=99t =
remember to include in the last response to this message:</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Klingon technically =
lacks an infinitive form of the verb. The prefix implies a subject and =
perhaps a direct object, and all verbs have a prefix, since null is a =
prefix, and a true infinitive form would not have a subject or object. =
Meanwhile, the canon term {ghojmeH taj} has been discussed at great =
length and it=E2=80=99s been generally agreed that a {-meH} clause =
modifying a noun is as close to an infinitive form as you=E2=80=99ll see =
in Klingon.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Yes,=
you can say that {ghojmeH} has a null prefix, but it=E2=80=99s a bit of =
a stretch to insist that it means =E2=80=9Can =
in-order-that-he/she/it/they-learn(s) knife=E2=80=9D. The meaning is =
closer to =E2=80=9Ca to-learn knife=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Can =
in-order-to-learn knife=E2=80=9D. We might even call it a =E2=80=9Clearnin=
g knife=E2=80=9D, keeping in mind that we don=E2=80=99t suggest the =
knife itself is learning anything.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">TKD doesn=E2=80=99t say anything about =
any difference between a {-meH} clause modifying a noun vs. modifying a =
verb, but consider what is involved in parsing each of these. If a =
{-meH} clause had its own time stamp, adverbials, locatives, explicit =
direct object or explicit subject when it precedes and modifies a noun, =
the resulting sentence would be quite a challenge to parse, especially =
if the noun being modified were the subject of another verb.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Simplicity becomes =
paramount when a verb with {-meH} modifies a noun that already has =
another role in the main clause. So, we tend to see single-word {-meH} =
clauses modifying nouns. You might see other suffixes on the {-meH} =
verb, as in {ja=E2=80=99chuqmeH rojHom}, but you won=E2=80=99t typically =
see a prefix and you can count on not having any nouns or chuvmey =
grammatically connected to the {-meH} verb.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{-meH} clauses modifying verbs are =
another matter entirely, since we are told in TKD that the {-meH} clause =
precedes the entire main clause. With the possible exception of a noun =
ambiguously placed as subject of the {-meH} clause and/or object of the =
main clause, it becomes pretty simple to figure out which words belong =
to which clause, so there is less need to Keep It Simple when it comes =
to forming the dependent {-meH} clause modifying the main =
clause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=99=
d like to acknowledge SuStel on a related topic. When I was thrashing =
about, trying to learn about {-meH} and other Type 9-suffixed dependent =
clauses, I overgeneralized and suggested that all Type 9 dependent =
clauses should precede the main clause. SuStel pointed out my egregious =
error. As a matter of style, I still prefer dependent clauses to precede =
main clauses simply because I find this easier to parse and more =
consistent with the Klingon tendency to put all the descriptive =
environment for a main verb first, and finish with the main verb like a =
punch line to a joke, resolving all that comes before it, but this =
suggestion is completely wrong in terms of being any kind of actual rule =
in the language. TKD explicitly shows many examples of several other =
Type 9 suffix based clauses placed before or after the main clause. =
Okrand makes it clear that it doesn=E2=80=99t matter whether it precedes =
or follows the main clause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div=
class=3D"">The Addendum, unfortunately, makes no statement one way or =
the other on placement of the newer Type 9 based clause described there. =
The only Type 9 based clause that we are told must precede the main =
clause is {-meH}.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">While contemplating this, it occurs to me that I don=E2=80=99t =
remember any examples of Type 9 based clauses that have their own Type 9 =
based clause=E2=80=A6 a dependent clause depending on another dependent =
clause. There don=E2=80=99t seem to be any explicit rules against it, =
though I can=E2=80=99t imagine that any examples of such wouldn=E2=80=99t =
be butt-ugly monsters.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">For that matter, I don=E2=80=99t remember seeing any main =
clauses with multiple Type 9 based dependent clauses. Again, I suspect =
the result would be a mess.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div=
class=3D"">Klingon doesn=E2=80=99t allow more than one suffix of a =
single Type on a noun or a verb. Essentially, there is a slot for each =
Type available for each noun and verb, and one and only one suffix of =
that type can fit in that slot.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Is there a similar slot for dependent =
clauses? Are we limited to one? We=E2=80=99ve been shown that there is =
no single slot for adverbials; we can have more than one. If we are =
allowed to use multiple Type 9 dependent clauses, would they require a =
conjunction between them? If we are required to use a conjunction, would =
that still be the case if one clause preceded the main clause and the =
other followed it?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">There are many unanswered questions about Klingon grammar =
remaining to us, after all these years, though I suggest that even if we =
are allowed these things, Okrand has given us the advice that Klingons =
prefer to split complex ideas into multiple, simpler sentences, rather =
than pile too much into one. This principle probably explains why we =
don=E2=80=99t have examples of multiple Type 9 dependent clauses =
connected to other Type 9 dependent clauses, or have examples of =
multiple Type 9 dependent clauses pointing to the same main =
clause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">jajlIj =
yItIv.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">poH =
jorwI=E2=80=99 vIchu=E2=80=99pu'=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99?</div><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:57 AM, qunnoQ HoD <<a =
href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" class=3D"">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D"">I was reading the purpose clauses =
and the following questions came up,making me feel like a bird of prey =
lost in a nebula..<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">1. lets consider the =
following example :<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH =
jagh la' The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to =
confer.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">why do we say {ja'chuqmeH rojHom =
neH jagh la'} instead of {rojHom ja'chuqmeH neH jagh la'} ?<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">2. jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH They are =
searching for the enemy in order to kill him/her.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">could we say {jagh luHoHtaHmeH jagh lunejtaH} meaning =
<<they are searching for the enemy,for the purpose of killing =
him>> ?<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">3. the definition of a =
purpose clause is verb plus {-meH},or verb plus {-meH} plus noun,or noun =
plus verb plus {-meH} ?<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">HQ 7.3, p.6, Sept. =
1998 (as i read in boQwI') would certainly come in handy right now.. =
Just to think that there is a HolQeD article explaining all this -an =
article I cannot have- makes feel like a dog whose food is placed just =
where its leash ends !<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">cpt qunnoQ<br =
class=3D""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol=
mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_0DC7BE37-3867-40BF-8BE5-21D6D1F8426C--
--===============4727940092508557925==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4727940092508557925==--
