[88938] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: RE: Compensating
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Thu Jul 7 13:19:57 2011
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:09:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711BD871B@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
These "purpose nouns" can be hard to identify since they also appear to be run of the mill purpose clauses. For instance, I've always thought that {DIlmeH Huch} is Klingon for "price":
Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?
How much do you want for that? (TKD)
Note that this appears to mean: "How much money do you want (in order) to pay for that thing." But notice that the subject of {DIl} is actually {Huch} ("marked" with the zero-prefix). If it were a true purpose clause - and assuming that the customer didn't just mis-speak - you would need to add an object prefix to the verb:
Dochvetlh vIDIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?
In order for me to pay for that thing, how much money do you want?
How much do you want me to pay for that?
This is not a clear-cut case and others have, in fact, argued against this analysis.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Felix Malmenbeck
> Agreed. In fact, looking in TKD (p. 64-65), MO confirms that ja'chuqmeH is part of
> the object, not a purpose clause that modifies the whole sentence.
> Based on this, I figure one should be able to say toH quv'eghmoHmeH betleH
> DaSuqta''a'. ("So, you've gotten yourself a self-aggrandizement bat'leth?")
Voragh:
>> I think your TKD quote is an example of a prefix-less general "purpose noun":
>> ja'chuqmeH rojHom
>> truce for (two sides) to discuss/confer with each other.
>> Perhaps these sorts of truces are so common in Klingon warfare that they have a
>> special name.
>> If it were a specific, one-time occasion, you would need to conjugate the verb:
>> nuja'meH rojHom neH jaghla'
>> The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to speak to us (tell us)
Andre:
>>> I think the best example is this sentence from TKD:
>>> ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' -
>>> The enemy commander wishes a truce to confer.
>>> Here, it strikes me as though the people who should confer (ja'chuq) are in fact
>>> *all of us* (maH), so if the prefixes have to match, it should be maja'chuqmeH
>>> rojHom neH jaghla'.
