[tlhIngan Hol] can the object of the {-meH} be the subject of what follows it ?

[Will Martin]

The question isn’t “whose purpose”. The purpose of the action of screaming. The {-meH} clause is modifying the verb {jach}. It explains the purpose of the action, not of the actor. 

Sent from my iPhone. 
charghwI’

> On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel:
>> tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan jach tlhIngan means
>> In order that the Romulan sees the Klingon, the Klingon shouts.
> 
> There is still something which confuses me..
> 
> We have the sentence:
> 
> {tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan jach tlhIngan}
> 
> The first part of the sentence, the {tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan},
> describes a purpose; the purpose that the "romulan sees the klingon".
> 
> I can't understand "whose purpose this purpose is". Is this a purpose,
> which the romulan has ? Because if the romulan has this purpose, then
> how is it possible that someone else, i.e. the klingon, is the one
> acting towards that purpose in the second part of the sentence ?
> 
> Or is this purpose, just "a purpose in general", case in which it
> *does* make sense for someone other than the romulan, to be acting
> towards that purpose ?
> 
> - bara'qa'
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org