<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:42 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">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_-6973203489833478696moz-cite-prefix">On 5/15/2018 8:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> 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>
</blockquote></span></div></blockquote><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="">
<br>
</span><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 href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt" target="_blank">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></p></div></blockquote><div>Your first translation assigns one of many possible genitive relations between <b>ghItlhvam</b> and <b>laH</b>, but I can't fault you for interpreting it differently than I intended since I
proposed the example so you could pick it apart and we can discuss how
the grammar works. However, it would be more neutral, if unidiomatic, to say "ability for one to translate of this manuscript" instead. I think the only genitive relation that is meaningful here is as the patient, as in "translation of the Iliad." Such a construction would be indistinguishable from a noun modified by a purpose clause with an object, and I actually saw it both ways as I wrote it and it seemed right to me since both grammatical interpretations led to the same result for me*, though of course that's useless if it doesn't lead others to the same interpretation. A partial justification for explicit objects on purpose clauses that modify nouns is <b>qaSuchmeH 'eb</b>. Due to the verb's conjugation, it has the implied object <b>SoH</b>. Or <b>SuvwI' DevmeH paq</b>, which I interpret as "Book for Guiding the Warrior," though it could be "Warrior's Guidebook." Even this last interpretation could be considered genitive as patient, since the apostrophe-s is not expressing ownership.<br></div><div> <br></div>*<font size="2">One kind of</font><font size="2"> grammatically ambiguous</font><font size="2"> </font><font size="2">but </font><font size="2">semantically non-ambiguous</font><font size="2"> construction I particularly like is a noun acting as either the subject of the preceding clause or the object of the following clause, as in <b>noychoHpa' wo'rIv vIqIHpu'</b>: <b>wo'rIv</b> can be either the subject of <b>noychoHpa'</b> or the object of <b>vIqIHpu'</b>; semantically it makes no difference unless context alters the meaning. But I digress.<br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="2"><br>jatlh SuStel:<br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><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></div></blockquote><div>No, I recognize there's a difference between purpose clauses as used on verbs and as used on nouns, but as you pointed out in your translations of my sentence, it can be an ambiguous case when the purpose clause precedes the object. Purpose clauses modifying verbs are separate sentences as defined in TKD and need to follow the rule of rom. For instance, your first canon example of <b>Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam</b> has <b>-lu'</b>
in the purpose clause and needs it, or else it means "Today is a good day for him/her to die."<br><br>I see what you mean about <b>qa'meH vIttlhegh</b>, though. No <b>-lu'</b> is needed, even though they're for anyone to use for replacement. But the <b>vIttlhegh</b> is not merely used for replacing; it does the replacing, too, as a <b>pe'meH taj</b> is both used for cutting, and does the cutting. So while they're really the instruments, I also think of these nouns as the agent of the action in the purpose clause, so I envision the purpose clause in these cases as still following the rule of rom, with a null prefix, which leads me to a digression. You might part company with me here, but if the noun modified by a purpose clause is also the patient of the action, I tend to stick <b>-lu'</b> in there, e.g. <b>pe'lu'meH nav</b> "paper for one to cut." Digression over. In the case of <b>mughmeH laH</b>, or <b>SuchmeH 'eb</b>, the noun makes no sense as either agent or patient of the action of the purpose clause, and I take your point below that the purpose clause in these cases is without arguments; i.e., it's not the null prefix.<br></div><div> <br></div><div>jatlh SuStel:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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><span class="">
jIjatlh:<br></span></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<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></span></div></blockquote><div>jatlh SuStel: <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class=""><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
</span><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><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"></font></span></div></blockquote></div>Although I agree with you now that adding <b>-lu'</b> doesn't add meaning in this case, I'd also add that it messes things up if we're talking about a particular translator: <b>*mughlu'meH laHDaj</b> is nonsense. Now, instead of "his ability to translate," it's "his ability for one to translate." The verb without arguments is universally adaptable; the explicit indefinite subject is in conflict with the possessive suffix.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">~mIp'av<br></div></div>