[93079] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Tue May 1 07:57:46 2012
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C207CC@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:57:34 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On May 1, 2012, at 7:01 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
>> The purpose of a purpose clause is to indicate purpose. Is that really
>> so hard to grasp?
>
> There's nothing hard about it. I'm just not sure it's the case, nor that it should be.
I think I can see where you're coming from. In your proposed examples, {-meH} is being used to indicate not method, but manner. It answers how instead of why. That interpretation does fit the {wIqIpmeH} canon better than TKD's description of purpose clauses. "Is it difficult in a we-hit-it kind of way?"
I still think that it's a bad idea to expand the interpretation of purpose clauses that way. While it does fully encompass the troubling canon phrase, it does so in a way that also embraces many opportunities for vagueness and ambiguity. It adds potential unintended interpretations to practically every use of {-meH}, while the only benefit I can see is that it makes it easier to translate an English "sentence as subject" phrasing.
I choose clarity of expression over ease of translation.
(The preceding sentence should not be construed as an insult, accusation, or personal attack -- it's just a concise way to express my personal opinion.)
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
