[110777] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -meH nouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Aug 30 12:36:09 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:58:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8d363c8a-668a-87fa-f06d-75e894a31df8@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============4853531846764963675==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------FBD43A9F5E85759CBE3BED85"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------FBD43A9F5E85759CBE3BED85
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 8/30/2017 11:24 AM, Lieven wrote:
> Which nouns make sense in a {[verb]meH [noun]} phrase?
>
> In a discussion in Facebook, someone asked to translate "Tell me why
> you did that" and I suggested {DamaghmeH meqlIj yIDel} "describe your
> reason for betraying him".
>
> Somebody corrected me that the noun in such a phrase should be some
> kind of tool, as in {pe'meH taj} and {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}.
>
> Is there any evidence for or against any of this?
>
> I feel that {maghmeH meq} sounds reasonable (no pun intended) but
> others don't.
Most of our examples seem to follow the pattern that purpose clauses
attached to nouns are theoretically infinitive—they don't have subjects
or prefixes—while purpose clauses attached to verbs are finite.
So, *ja'chuqmeH rojHom*/truce to confer,/ but *maja'chuqmeH maghom*/we
meet to confer./
I believe there are counterexamples, so take that with a grain of salt,
but I think that's the basic idea.
As for *maghmeH meq,* I don't like it because your motive doesn't have
the purpose of betraying; your motive leads to betraying. In *ja'chuqmeH
rojHom* the purpose of the truce is conferring. In *pe'meH taj,* the
purpose of the knife is cutting. *-meH* on a noun describes the mission
of that noun. The mission of your motive is not to betray; the /cause/
of your betrayal is your motive.
I wouldn't translate /tell me why you did that!/ so literally. I'd just
say *qatlh Data'pu'? */why did you do it?/ If the original action done
were specified /(tell me why you betrayed him!),/ I'd use a better verb:
*qatlh Damaghpu'?*/why did you betray him?/ If I absolutely had to
include the /tell me!/ part, I'd just add a *HIja'!* at the end of it
or, if I don't want it to be confused with /yes,/ I'd say *jIHvaD
yIja'!* And if it truly, unfairly had to be a single sentence about
telling, I'd say *jIHvaD maghpu'ghach meq yIja'*/tell me your betrayal
motive!/ And if you insisted that, nononono, not just betrayal but
betraying /him,/ I'd say go away, I'm done.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------FBD43A9F5E85759CBE3BED85
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/30/2017 11:24 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8d363c8a-668a-87fa-f06d-75e894a31df8@gmx.de">Which nouns
make sense in a {[verb]meH [noun]} phrase?
<br>
<br>
In a discussion in Facebook, someone asked to translate "Tell me
why you did that" and I suggested {DamaghmeH meqlIj yIDel}
"describe your reason for betraying him".
<br>
<br>
Somebody corrected me that the noun in such a phrase should be
some kind of tool, as in {pe'meH taj} and {ja'chuqmeH rojHom}.
<br>
<br>
Is there any evidence for or against any of this?
<br>
<br>
I feel that {maghmeH meq} sounds reasonable (no pun intended) but
others don't.
</blockquote>
<p>Most of our examples seem to follow the pattern that purpose
clauses attached to nouns are theoretically infinitive—they don't
have subjects or prefixes—while purpose clauses attached to verbs
are finite.</p>
<p>So, <b>ja'chuqmeH rojHom</b><i> truce to confer,</i> but <b>maja'chuqmeH
maghom</b><i> we meet to confer.</i></p>
<p>I believe there are counterexamples, so take that with a grain of
salt, but I think that's the basic idea.</p>
<p>As for <b>maghmeH meq,</b> I don't like it because your motive
doesn't have the purpose of betraying; your motive leads to
betraying. In <b>ja'chuqmeH rojHom</b> the purpose of the truce
is conferring. In <b>pe'meH taj,</b> the purpose of the knife is
cutting. <b>-meH</b> on a noun describes the mission of that
noun. The mission of your motive is not to betray; the <i>cause</i>
of your betrayal is your motive.</p>
<p>I wouldn't translate <i>tell me why you did that!</i> so
literally. I'd just say <b>qatlh Data'pu'? </b><i>why did you do
it?</i> If the original action done were specified <i>(tell me
why you betrayed him!),</i> I'd use a better verb: <b>qatlh Damaghpu'?</b><i>
why did you betray him?</i> If I absolutely had to include the <i>tell
me!</i> part, I'd just add a <b>HIja'!</b> at the end of it or,
if I don't want it to be confused with <i>yes,</i> I'd say <b>jIHvaD
yIja'!</b> And if it truly, unfairly had to be a single sentence
about telling, I'd say <b>jIHvaD maghpu'ghach meq yIja'</b><i>
tell me your betrayal motive!</i> And if you insisted that,
nononono, not just betrayal but betraying <i>him,</i> I'd say go
away, I'm done.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------FBD43A9F5E85759CBE3BED85--
--===============4853531846764963675==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4853531846764963675==--
