[tlhIngan Hol] -lu' and -'egh with {-meH}ed nouns

[Will Martin]

Continuing to overthink this… it occurs to me that a student teacher, who teaches in order to learn…

ghojmeH ghojmoH ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’.

The student teacher teaches in order to learn. 

I’m tempted to try to make that “The student teacher teaches in order to learn how to teach”, but it seems like it would require applying a Purpose Clause to another Purpose Clause, which might be a bridge too far for Klingon grammar… unless…

ghojmoHmeH mIw lughojmeH ghojmoH ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’pu’.

Student teachers teach in order to learn a teaching method.

And, of course:

ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’pu’vaD ghojmoHmeH mIw lughojmeH ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’’a'.

The professor teaches the teaching method to the student teachers.

I may have blown a fuse there and gotten lost in the grammar somewhere, but I think I got that right...

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Nov 11, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to give examples to back up what is said here:
> 
> borghel luHoHmeH puqpu’, ghojmeH tajmey lo’.
> 
> The children used boys’ knives to kill the little bird.
> 
> {HoH} is giving the purpose of the the verb {lo’}, while {ghoj} is giving the purpose of the noun {taj}. 
> 
> {HoH} gets a prefix because it forms a clause with a subject and object, like normal Klingon verbs. 
> 
> {ghoj} doesn’t get a prefix because it is as close to an infinitive as you’ll find in Klingon. It’s controversial whether or not you should call it infinitive because maybe something else is going on that we don’t understand about the grammar yet, but it is common practice to have verbs with {-meH} describe the purpose of a noun without reference to any subject or object. It appears that this is not merely a null prefix. It’s the absence of a prefix. There’s no other place in Klingon grammar where one would justifiably ponder the difference between a present null prefix vs. the absence of a prefix. It’s a unique exception in the language.
> 
> Okrand has not described or explained this lack of reference to subjects or objects when a verb with {-meH} is applied to a noun. He has merely shown us examples in canon that can’t be reliably explained any other way.
> 
> Again, this is not a rule. It’s just an observation about verbs with {-meH} in canon. A Purpose Clause, complete with subject and/or object can apply to a noun, and it’s possible that a maybe-infinitive verb-with-{-meH} could apply to a verb, but it is common for the maybe-infinitive construction to be applied to nouns, and less common to see it giving the purpose of a verb.
> 
> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
> 
> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
> 
>> On Nov 11, 2020, at 9:39 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/11/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>>> SuStel:
>>>> that purpose clauses attached to nouns are infinitive
>>> mu'tlheghvam vIyaj; {-meH}'ed nouns boplaw'.
>>> 
>>> SuStel:
>>>> and those attached to verbs are finite.
>>> nuq 'oH "purpose clause attached to verb"'e' ?
>> Purpose clauses attached to sentences. Verb = sentence in TKD-speak. "The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing."
>> 
>> -- 
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20201111/62127129/attachment.htm>