[93104] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Tue May 1 17:52:22 2012
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 14:51:06 -0700
To: tlhIngan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C208CF@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
At 14:09 '?????' 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>ghItlhta' Qov:
> > Would everyone agree that {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a' Qu' wIta'nISbogh?} was a
> > well formed sentence?
>
>I think everybody would agree that it's a =
>well-formed sentence, but I think that many =
>(myself being an exception) would contest that =
>it means what you want it to mean, since being =
>difficult does not contribute to accomplishing =
>the purpose (except in some very specific =
>scenarios, such as when you make it difficult in =
>order to make it appealing ... but that's not the idea here, I take it).
So, removing the interrogative, because that =
shouldn't make a difference, for you the change =
from {Qu' Qatlh wIta'nIS} to {Qatlh Qu' =
wIta'nISbogh} breaks the statement of what has to =
happen in order for us to hit it. I can buy =
that. Can you accept that for some people it doesn't?
>My argument is - more or less - that it's not =
>crazy to think that this does work. [I also =
>think that on top of not being crazy, it may =
>also be "correct". I'm less certain about that, though.]
>
>A day can be good for dying.
>Fake ale can be preferable for drinking.
>A mission can be difficult for achieving.
Does the fact that the first two are acceptable =
English sentences and the last one sounds ESL have any bearing on anything?
>I'd assume it'd be something like:
>[DoS/nejwI'] wIqIpmeH [maH] Qatlh'a' [ngoQ/Qu'/ta']
I thought that was pretty obvious, too. So much =
so that I seem to have forgotten to omit the word Qu'.
>QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
Is there's supposed to be a -meH after =
maHeghpu'? If so, then it comes out as stream of =
consciousness disjointed speech. "We seem to be =
in Paradise. In order for us to have died =
[something omitted] ... is it possible? It would =
get closer to "Is it possible we have died" if =
there were a period after maHeghpu'. Or better =
-'a' then a period. "Have we died? Is it possible?"
>wej pa' pawmeH vay' DuH'a'?
Okay, trying to discard that I know what the =
discussion is about and just reading the =
sentence, like it was an interesting story =
someone had sent me ... I read that as:
"In order for someone's alternate reality to have =
not yet arrived in the room," - which doesn't =
make sense without further context, but it might =
work as something from the scene from HHGttG =
where Zaphod Beeblebrox eats the piece of fairy =
cake from which the universe model was =
extrapolated. I'm looking for something that is =
like a possibility but greater in scope or importance. Future?
"In order for him to have not yet arrived there, =
is something possible," Hmm, that might mean =
something. It would be better if vay' were =
changed to wanI' and if the whole thing were =
rearranged to wej pa' paw. DuH'a' pawbe'meH wanI'?
"In order for someone to have not yet arrived at =
the room ... is it possible." I think this was =
the one you were aiming at, but I'm afraid the =
two halves don't connect for me. It's like =
someone getting 'e' backwards and trying to use =
sentence as subject. I think I'm not the first =
person to say that in this thread. It just =
doesn't connect as something that is done to achieve the first clause.
Because I know what you are trying to say, I =
wonder if you are approaching it from the English =
"Is it possible for someone to have not yet =
arrived in the room." English is pig-ass stupid =
and does different things with the same words and =
the same thing with different words without any =
rules that native speakers know. That "for" has =
nothing to do with "for the purpose of." If =
there is a slight difference between "Is it =
possible for someone to have not yet arrived in =
the room?" and "Is it possible that someone has =
not yet arrived in the room?" it is the =
difference between {wej pa' pawlaH'a' vay'} and =
{wej pa' paw vay' 'e' qaSlaHmoH'a' wanI' DuH?}. =
But the two could both mean exactly the same thing, the second one.
Say things that need saying. Use the best tools =
at your disposal to express them in the clearest =
manner possible. If people don't understand =
something then rather than trying to explain it, =
rip it out and try a new way to say it.
- Qov
>_______________________________________
>From: David Trimboli [david@trimboli.name]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 21:41
>To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
>
>On 5/1/2012 2:58 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
> >
> >> But the "to hit" in the English is *not* a purpose clause. The
> >> full sentence is either "Is the target difficult to hit?" or "Is it
> >> difficult to hit the target?" In neither case does the "to hit"
> >> mean "in order to hit." (*"Is the target difficult in order to
> >> hit?" *"Is it difficult in order to hit the target?") Interpreting
> >> it this way, you're just trying to rationalize away the fact that
> >> there is no purpose expressed in this sentence
> >
> > There's a purpose in the Klingon sentence, though: The purpose is
> > hitting it. The question is: How hard will that purpose be to
> > achieve?
>
>There is a purpose in the situation being described, but it is not
>expressed in the sentence. There is no dependency in the sentence on
>being difficult, which is what a purpose clause does.
>
>"The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is
>describing." (TKD 64)
>
>The purpose clause describes the purpose of the noun or verb to which it
>is attached. In the example sentence, {qIpmeH} "in order to hit" can
>*only* be describing the purpose of {Qatlh'a'} "is it difficult?"
>
>Let's drop the question for a moment. *{qIpmeH Qatlh} "it is difficult
>to hit." This means, literally, "it has the quality of being difficult
>so that it can hit." (Let's also ignore the seemingly wrong subject and
>object combination... "so that it can hit"?)
>
>But "it" (the target?) does not have the quality of being difficult so
>that it can hit. During the situation in question, the probe was just
>floating out in space. There was no intention there, no purpose; no one
>did anything to make anything difficult.
>
>What the Klingon question *should* be asking is, "Is the hitting
>difficult?" Most simply, that would be something like {Qatlh'a'
>qIpghach}, though one would not actually say it like that. This is where
>twisty constructions like {qIpmeH 'eb} "opportunity for hitting" and the
>like start appearing.
>
> >> If this explanation and the sheer obvious English bias of the
> >> translations
>
>(Oh, *and* the fact that it doesn't match the grammar in TKD.)
>
> > don't convince you, what would?
> >
> > To be convinced this doesn't work, I'd need either:
> >
> > a) =85to be convinced that it's absurd for the main clause to be a
> > description of some quality of the means ("it's difficult"), rather
> > than a direct statement of those means ("aiming and shooting").
>
>I don't undestand what you mean here. I think there are too many
>negatives for me to follow.
>
>If we go by the actual sentiment, rather than what is spoken, the
>"hitting" is what is difficult, not the purpose of being difficult. If
>anyone has a purpose in the scene, it is Captain Klaa, whose purpose is
>to hit the target.
>
>qIpmeH baHta'
>he fired to hit the target
>
>If {Qatlh} were a noun meaning "difficulty," I would accept {qIpmeH
>Qatlh} as "hitting difficulty." But then it couldn't be a question.
>
>Now, I'd also be interested if you could try to explicitly identify the
>subject and object (if any) of {qIpmeH}, and the subject of {Qatlh'a'}.
>Is *what* difficult?
>
>--
>SuStel
>http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
