[tlhIngan Hol] mughmeH laH vs mughlaHghach
SuStel
sustel at trimboli.name
Tue May 15 18:42:21 PDT 2018
On 5/15/2018 8:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
>> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>>> *mughlaHghach* seems to me to be ambiguously synonymous with
>>> both *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH*. Without context,
>>> I'd expect these two phrases to mean respectively "ability
>>> to translate" and "ability to be translated."
>>
>> *mughlu'meH laH* means /ability in order for someone
>> indefinite to translate,/ not /ability to be translated./
>>
>> My point was not whether passive voice was suitable for
>> translating this term, which I'd say it is in this case, but how
>> the term would be applied. *mughlu'meH laH* clearly does not
>> apply to the translator. Therefore, I would expect it to be used
>> in talking about a text.
>
> *mughlu'meH laH *clearly DOES apply to the translator. The only
> difference between *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* is that in
> the latter the subject doing the translating is explicitly
> indefinite. In the former there is NO subject. Purpose clauses are
> the only verbal clauses that allow you to ignore verb conjugation.
>
> If you are talking about a particular translator's ability, would it
> make sense to talk about his *mughlu'meH laH*? It seems to me that
> *-lu'* would be out of place if the speaker and listener have a
> particular translator in mind.
>
> But if you were talking whether a particular text were translatable
> (i.e., whether there was anyone who could translate it), wouldn't that
> be a logical context for talking about *mughlu'meH laH*? For instance,
> *ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH chavlu'pu'be'* as a way of saying "No one
> has figured out how to translate this manuscript."
This says "One has not achieved this manuscript's ability in order that
one translates." That is, the manuscript has an ability to translate
something (not itself). Another reading, making the purpose clause
attach to *chav* instead of *laH,* would be /In order that one
translates this manuscript, one has not achieved the ability./ This is
close to what you want, but look closely at the grammar. And look also
at this post <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt> by
Okrand, wherein he tries to resolve the problem of applying purpose
clauses to negative statements by avoiding the problem altogether. (Did
you carefully try not to achieve the ability, so that you could
translate the manuscript?)
I think you're confusing attaching a purpose clause to a verb (or
clause) and attaching a purpose clause to a noun. Purpose clauses are
different than other dependent clauses. You can attach purpose clauses
to sentences like other dependent clauses *(Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam),* but
you can also attach purpose clauses to nouns *(qa'meH vIttlhegh).* In
the latter case, the resulting phrase, purpose clause plus head noun, is
a noun phrase. Notice that in the example *qa'meH vIttlhegh, *the noun
is not the subject of the purpose clause. Notice also that the purpose
clause has not been given a subject or object: it's a
/proverb-for-replacing,/ not a /proverb-for-him-to-replace./
The rules for when purpose clauses must take subjects or objects are not
given by Okrand. In general, it appears that purpose clauses attached to
verbs (sentences) get subjects (possibly indefinite) and objects, while
those attached to nouns don't. But he's broken that general trend from
time to time *(qaSuchmeH 'eb; qIpmeH Qatlh'a'; *and even the
object-but-no-subject *SuvwI' DevmeH paq**).*
//
> So would you agree that *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* are not
> synonymous, and that *mughlaHghach* is ambiguously synonymous with
> both of them?
No. *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* mean the same thing, though
*mughmeH laH* is the expected form.
In the first form, the verb is completely without arguments. It's like
in English how the /translate/ in /ability to translate/ has no subject
or object at all. Klingon has no infinitives, but this is close.
In the second form, the verb is not close to an infinitive: it has an
explicit indefinite subject. Just as *qaSuchmeH 'eb* means /opportunity
for me to visit you,/ *mughlu'meH laH* means /ability for someone
indefinite to translate. /There is no significant difference between
/ability to translate/ and /ability for someone indefinite to
translate./ I wouldn't bother with the *-lu',* but if it's there it
makes no difference. I could say *jImughmeH laH* /ability for me to
translate,/ and now it means something different, but adding an
indefinite subject to a verb that had no subject to begin with doesn't
change the meaning. And I see no significant difference between that
meaning and *mughlaHghach*/ability to translate./
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180515/b6459cc9/attachment.htm>
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol
mailing list