[83879] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Using the verb DuH (was Art of War Chp. 1 (section 3/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Tue Jan 8 11:38:22 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <f5b478ef0801072116x2b9d4b04l13f835c691fa8c46@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:36:33 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Why work so hard to use {DuHbe'} and fret over "sentence as subject"
when we have {-laHbe'}? {vIHchoHpa' gho luwuqluHbe'.} If you don't
like {-luH}, then {vIHchoHpa' gho luwuqlaHbe' vay'.} Either one beats
using {DuHbe'}, both because of the "sentence as subject" problem and
the problem of using {-meH} with a negative. It winds up sounding like
the decision is the mission of the impossibility. It is impossible, in
order that one decides...
See what I mean? This is a problem with {-meH} clauses when used on a
negative main verb. Why is it impossible? It is impossible, in order
that one decides upon it. It sounds like that if it WERE possible,
then the mission of deciding would not be served.
And for your second example: {lojmIt poSmoHluHbe'} or {lojmIt
poSmoHlaHbe' vay'} or even {not lojmIt poSmoHlaH vay'}.
{DuH} is most useful as an adjective or adjectival verb, not as a work-
around to avoid using {-luH}.
Qu' DuHbe' vIbej vIneH.
DaHjaj DuHbe' jIbwIj.
Doq
On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:16 AM, qa'vaj wrote:
> This is in reference to a sentence from "The Art of War" in the
> following
> passage:
> Dupmeyvammo' Qaplu'.
> vIHchoHpa' gho luwuqlu'meH DuHbe'.
>
> These are the strategies leading to victory.
> They cannot be settled in advance [D].
>
> Since this is an issue more with my understanding of tlhIngan Hol
> rather
> than the translation, I've pulled the question out as a separate
> thread.
>
> I went over and over the last sentence trying to figure out what the
> subject
> of {DuHbe'} is. {DuH}, "be possible", is a hard verb to use because
> it begs
> to have a sentence-as-subject construction. I kept wanting to use the
> generic 'It' as the subject "It's not possible to decide these
> strategies in
> advance", which I know is wrong (SIS notwithstanding). However, I
> finally
> decided that {Dupmeyvam} must be the subject, and perhaps this
> sentence is
> following the {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} template for the usage of a {-
> meH}
> clause. This is an interesting way to solve the problem of using
> DuH, and
> since 'ISqu' didn't footnote it, I wonder if this has been discussed
> somewhere (HolQeD?). I have a vague recollection of following a
> thread here
> in the forum regarding DuH, but don't recall the outcome.
>
> {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} was really hard for me to get my mind around
> when I
> first encountered it. From the description of the {-meH} clause
> (applied to
> verbs) I tended to think that the purpose being described was
> related to the
> intention or motivation of the subject of the verb. However in
> {Heghlu'meH
> QaQ jajvam}, {QaQ jajvam} seems to be an opinion expressed by the
> speaker,
> and the {-meH} clause appears to be describing the reason why the
> speaker is
> stating the opinion. Certainly, {jajvam} didn't choose to be
> {QaQ}. "I
> judge this day to be good when considered from the aspect of someone
> dying."
> (as a kind of loose way to look at it).
>
> So the full-up sentence from "The Art of War" would be:
>
> vIHchoHpa' gho Dupmeyvam luwuqlu'meH DuHbe' Dupmeyvam.
>
> "These strategies are impossible (when considered from the aspect of
> deciding upon them in advance)."
>
> Using {-meH} is a clever way to go, but it doesn't look like it
> works as a
> general solution. "It's not possible to open that door." {lojmItvetlh
> poSmoHlu'meH DuHbe' ???}.
>
> --
> qa'vaj
> qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
>
>
>
