[tlhIngan Hol] SuStel please tell me, I need to know..

[SuStel]

On 7/31/2017 11:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel:
>> Sometimes it is speculated that you need a subject if the purpose clause attaches to a
>> sentence instead of a noun
> Because grammar terms confuse me, could you write an example of this ?

I already did. The noun phrase *ghojmeH taj* is a purpose clause, 
*ghojmeH,* attached to a head noun, *taj. taj* is not the subject of 
*ghojmeH;* the knife does not learn anything. It's not an /in order that 
he/she learns knife;/ it's a /knife for learning./ There is no subject. 
It's not an indefinite subject because there's no *-lu';* there is 
simply no subject. This is an infinitive, or as close to an infinitive 
as Klingon gets.

An even more interesting example is *ja'chuqmeH rojHom* /truce (in 
order) to confer./ The purpose clause has a suffixes that says the 
subject is a plural entity whose constituents do something to each 
other, but there is no subject in the phrase. There /might/ be people 
ready to confer during a truce, but the phrase doesn't say that.

Or take the simple *vutmeH 'un*/pot for preparing food./ The pot is a 
pot for preparing food whether or not there is someone about to prepare 
food in it. *vutmeH* has no subject, implied or otherwise.

But there are tons of examples where a purpose clause, attached to a 
sentence instead of a noun, gets prefixes and suffixes and a subject. 
*Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam* is a well-known one. Or *cha'puj vIngevmeH chaw' 
HInobneS,* which even has an object.

Given that the distinction seems to be "infinitive" for nouns and 
"finite" for sentences, I probably should have written *jatlhqu'lu'meH.* 
*shrug*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170731/4be82e44/attachment-0017.htm>