<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/15/2018 8:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1f0vAVxioXxq69gU25dDuHeGzQUP+Fy7bn+7zuBmXhG3w@mail.gmail.com">On
Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div class="m_-3474986326818565683moz-cite-prefix">On
5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM,
SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><span>
<div
class="m_-3474986326818565683m_8297060816530971397m_3280909460551248682moz-cite-prefix">On
5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><b>mughlaHghach</b> seems to
me to be ambiguously synonymous with both <b>mughmeH
laH</b> and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>. Without
context, I'd expect these two phrases to mean
respectively "ability to translate" and "ability
to be translated."</blockquote>
</span>
<p><b>mughlu'meH laH</b> means <i>ability in order
for someone indefinite to translate,</i> not <i>ability
to be translated.</i><span
class="m_-3474986326818565683m_8297060816530971397HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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. <b>mughlu'meH
laH</b> clearly does not apply to the translator.
Therefore, I would expect it to be used in talking about
a text.</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<p><b>mughlu'meH laH </b>clearly DOES apply to the
translator. The only difference between <b>mughmeH laH</b>
and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b> 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.<span
class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>If you are talking about a particular translator's ability,
would it make sense to talk about his <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>? It
seems to me that <b>-lu'</b> would be out of place if the
speaker and listener have a particular translator in mind.<br>
<br>
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 <b>mughlu'meH
laH</b>? For instance, <b>ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH
chavlu'pu'be'</b> as a way of saying "No one has figured out
how to translate this manuscript."<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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 <b>chav</b> instead of <b>laH,</b>
would be <i>In order that one translates this manuscript, one has
not achieved the ability.</i> This is close to what you want,
but look closely at the grammar. And look also at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt">this
post</a> 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?)<br>
</p>
<p>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 <b>(Heghlu'meH
QaQ jajvam),</b> but you can also attach purpose clauses to
nouns <b>(qa'meH vIttlhegh).</b> In the latter case, the
resulting phrase, purpose clause plus head noun, is a noun phrase.
Notice that in the example <b>qa'meH vIttlhegh, </b>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 <i>proverb-for-replacing,</i>
not a <i>proverb-for-him-to-replace.</i></p>
<p>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 <b>(qaSuchmeH
'eb; qIpmeH Qatlh'a'; </b>and even the object-but-no-subject <b>SuvwI'
DevmeH paq</b><b>).</b><br>
<i></i></p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1f0vAVxioXxq69gU25dDuHeGzQUP+Fy7bn+7zuBmXhG3w@mail.gmail.com">
<div>So would you agree that <b>mughmeH laH</b> and <b>mughlu'meH
laH</b>
are not synonymous, and that <b>mughlaHghach</b> is ambiguously
synonymous with both of them?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No. <b>mughmeH laH</b> and <b>mughlu'meH laH</b> mean the same
thing, though <b>mughmeH laH</b> is the expected form.</p>
<p>In the first form, the verb is completely without arguments. It's
like in English how the <i>translate</i> in <i>ability to
translate</i> has no subject or object at all. Klingon has no
infinitives, but this is close.</p>
<p>In the second form, the verb is not close to an infinitive: it
has an explicit indefinite subject. Just as <b>qaSuchmeH 'eb</b>
means <i>opportunity for me to visit you,</i> <b>mughlu'meH laH</b>
means <i>ability for someone indefinite to translate. </i>There
is no significant difference between <i>ability to translate</i>
and <i>ability for someone indefinite to translate.</i> I
wouldn't bother with the <b>-lu',</b> but if it's there it makes
no difference. I could say <b>jImughmeH laH</b> <i>ability for
me to translate,</i> 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 <b>mughlaHghach</b><i>
ability to translate.</i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>