[102089] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holt)
Mon Nov 9 12:57:47 2015
From: David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com>
To: qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com>, tlhIngan Hol mailing list
<tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:57:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJnGAagFidV_F0SHebuaCBujSvuk_cLbmhpGF+Lo-9Unw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4339437726181287319==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_DM3PR16MB07000B386603CB3CA6D558E8A4150DM3PR16MB0700namp_"
--_000_DM3PR16MB07000B386603CB3CA6D558E8A4150DM3PR16MB0700namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlh qunnoQ HoD:
> "..the purpose clause must precede the noun or verb it is describing.."
>
> My difficulty is to figure out which actually is the noun or verb that is=
being described.
As the sentence from TKD says, it is the noun or verb immediately after the=
{-meH} clause. {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} means "a truce in order to discuss". =
{ja'chuqmeH neH} means "he wants it in order to discuss". Of course, it ge=
ts a little more confusing when the verb that follows has an object. Since=
that object must preceed the verb, it appears immediately after the {-meH}=
clause and you are stuck trying to decide if it is modifying the noun or t=
he verb.
> In the sentence {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'} <<The enemy commander w=
ishes a
> truce (in order) to confer.>> which is this noun or verb ?
> the {rojHom},the {jagh la'} or the {neH} ?
It cannot be modifying the {jagh la'} because that is long after it, not im=
mediately after it. However, {rojHom} and {neH} are both good possibilitie=
s and the Klingon sentence does not make it clear which it is. You may hav=
e to read it both ways and see which one makes sense, though most such exam=
ples will have a very similar meaning either way and it won't really matter=
much. For example:
(ja'chuqmeH rojHom) neH jagh la'. - "The enemy commander wants (a truce for=
discussing)."
(ja' chuqmeH rojHom neH) jagh la'. - "The enemy commander (wants, in order =
to discuss,) a truce."
Though there is a technical difference between these two sentences, there a=
re very few situations where the difference is vital. I can imagine a foll=
ow-up discussion going like this:
ja'chuqmeH rojHom? - A truce for discussing?
HIja'. ja'chuqmeH neH. - Yes. He wants it in order to discuss.
> Similarly I wonder : In the sentence {jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH} <<they=
are searching
> for the enemy in order to kill him/her>>, which is the noun or verb that =
the relative clause
> must precede ? the {jagh} or the {lunejtaH} ?
Let's try the same exercise with this one.
(jagh luHoHmeH jagh) lunejtaH. - "They are searching for (the enemy for kil=
ling the enemy).
Hmm... "the enemy for killing the enemy" doesn't make much sense. Let's se=
e if the other way is better.
(jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH). - "They are (searching for, in order to kill=
the enemy,) the enemy."
That works a little better, don't you think?
janSIy
--_000_DM3PR16MB07000B386603CB3CA6D558E8A4150DM3PR16MB0700namp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;back=
ground-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">ghItl=
h qunnoQ HoD:</span></p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr">
<div></div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> "..the purpose clause must =
precede the noun or verb it is describing.."</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
> </div>
> My difficulty is to figure out which actually is the noun or verb that=
is <span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">being described. </span></di=
v>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">As the sentence from TKD says, it is =
the noun or verb immediately after the {-meH} clause. {ja'chuqmeH roj=
Hom} means "a truce in order to discuss". {ja'chuqmeH neH} =
means "he wants it in order to discuss". Of course, it
gets a little more confusing when the verb that follows has an object. &nb=
sp;Since that object must preceed the verb, it appears immediately after th=
e {-meH} clause and you are stuck trying to decide if it is modifying the n=
oun or the verb.</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> In the sentence {</span><span cl=
ass=3D"im" style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'} =
<<The enemy commander wishes a</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im" style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> truce (in order) to=
confer.>> which is this noun or verb ?</span></div>
<span class=3D"im">> the {rojHom},the {jagh la'} or the {neH} ?<br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im">It cannot be modifying the {jagh la'} because that =
is long after it, not immediately after it. However, {rojHom} and {ne=
H} are both good possibilities and the Klingon sentence does not make it cl=
ear which it is. You may have to read
it both ways and see which one makes sense, though most such examples will=
have a very similar meaning either way and it won't really matter much. &n=
bsp;For example:</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im">(ja'chuqmeH rojHom) neH jagh la'. - "The enemy=
commander wants (a truce for discussing)."</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im">(ja' chuqmeH rojHom neH) jagh la'. - "The enem=
y commander (wants, in order to discuss,) a truce."</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im">Though there is a technical difference between thes=
e two sentences, there are very few situations where the difference is vita=
l. I can imagine a follow-up discussion going like this:</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im">ja'chuqmeH rojHom? - A truce for discussing?</span>=
</div>
<div><span class=3D"im">HIja'. ja'chuqmeH neH. - Yes. He wants =
it in order to discuss.</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class=3D"im" style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> Similarly I wonder =
: In the sentence
</span><span style=3D"font-size: 13pt; font-family: Georgia; font-style: it=
alic; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"></span><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">{jag=
h luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH} <<they are searching</span></div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> for the enemy in order to kill h=
im/her>>, which is the noun or verb that the relative clause</span></=
div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">> must precede ? the {jagh} or the=
{lunejtaH} ?</span><br>
</div>
<div><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div>Let's try the same exercise with this one.</div>
<div>(jagh luHoHmeH jagh) lunejtaH. - "They are searching for (the ene=
my for killing the enemy).</div>
<div>Hmm... "the enemy for killing the enemy" doesn't make much s=
ense. Let's see if the other way is better.</div>
<div>(jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH). - "They are (searching for, in ord=
er to kill the enemy,) the enemy."</div>
<div>That works a little better, don't you think?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>janSIy</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_DM3PR16MB07000B386603CB3CA6D558E8A4150DM3PR16MB0700namp_--
--===============4339437726181287319==
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
--===============4339437726181287319==--
