<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 5/16/2018 11:24 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">So
you'd accept that the purpose clause in a noun phrase can have an
object?</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sure. What else do you think is happening with <b>qaSuchmeH 'eb?</b>
It's <b>SoH qaSuchmeH jIH 'eb.</b></p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">
This makes it more like a relative clause.</blockquote>
<br>
<p>All of the subordinate clauses can have subjects and objects.
It's just the purpose clauses that are exceptional in that they
can also NOT have subjects and objects. We simply don't know
exactly when you can and can't drop the arguments. In general,
purpose clauses attached to verbs have them and purpose clauses
attached to nouns don't, but both sides of that are broken from
time to time.</p>
<p>Unlike a relative clause, the head noun of a purpose clause is
NOT the subject or object of the clause.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">
It would be interesting to compare nouns with purpose clauses to
relative clauses. There are enough similarities that one could
stumble over the differences. One difference is that the purpose
clause must still precede that which it modifies, correct?</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Correct. A purpose clause precedes its head noun, while a
relative clause puts its head noun into a subject or object
position within the clause.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">
And the topic marker can make either subject or object be the head
noun of a relative clause, but I don't get that this could happen
with a purpose clause.</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There would be no point. Since the head noun is not inside the
purpose clause, there is nothing to disambiguate.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">Let's
bring this back to Aurélie's original point: would <b>ghItlhvam
mughlaHghach chavlu'pu'</b> be a better way to say "The ability
to translate this manuscript has been achieved" (colloquially,
"They've figured out how to translate this manuscript")?</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Now you're trying to add an object to a verb before a <b>-ghach</b>
is applied, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. I don't
personally subscribe to the idea that <b>-ghach</b>'d verbs can
be given arguments before the <b>-ghach</b> is applied; Okrand
declined to comment on this possibility when given the chance.
Start with a root verb, add one or more suffixes, then add <b>-ghach.</b>
That's it. No prefixes, no objects, no subjects, no other
syntactic nouns or clauses go inside the scope of the <b>-ghach.</b></p>
<p>What you have above says <i>This manuscript's ability to
translate has been achieved.</i> That is, the manuscript has
been working to be able to translate something, and now it has the
ability to do so.<b> </b>What the manuscript is going to
translate, or how it's going to translate it, is not said.<br>
<b></b></p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1cmk3e79T9ypnLmuW4945=ky_hE8uWNZjDJt=_c4Y8tVQ@mail.gmail.com">
It seems like a good choice to me, since <b>-ghach </b>nominalizes
in such a way that <b>mughlaHghach</b> encompasses both "ability
to translate" and "ability to be translated."</blockquote>
<p>IT DOES NOT. <b>mughlaHghach</b> means only <i>ability to
translate.</i> To mean <i>ability to be translated,</i> you'd
need a verb X that means <i>be translated,</i> and then you could
say <b>XlaHghach.</b> That verb is not <b>mugh.</b></p>
<p>Are you getting mixed up by the word <i>translate?</i> In
English you can say things like "I can't say that; it doesn't
translate." That's not <b>mugh.</b> The message does not <b>mugh;
</b>it gets <b>mugh</b>'d. Klingon <b>mugh</b> is transitive.<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>