<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you both mIp'av and SuStel for your replies!</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">When I started the thread, I had in mind more the ability of the translator, not the "translatability" of texts, but this is indeed a very interesting question!</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like to contribute a few remarks to the debate after reading your messages.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">1/ I would avoid writing {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH}, I think its meaning may be ambiguous or at least not very easy to figure out, perhaps because a reader may be tempted to associate the noun "laH" with the indefinite subject conveyed by {-lu'}. Also, a manuscript in and of itself cannot have "abilities".</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">2/ But there can exist a "possibility" for a manuscript to be translated. What do you make of {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH} ? </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">>> As in: ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH tu'lu'be' = There is no possibility to translate this manuscript / it is impossible to translate this manuscript</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">>> of course a simpler (safer) way to say it could be {ghItlhvam mughlaH pagh} = no one can translate this manuscript</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">3/ For the sentence "no one has figured out how to translate this manuscript", I would not consider using {laH}:</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">{ghItlhvam mughlu'meH mIw Sam pagh} = no one has found a way for this manuscript to be translated </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Note: when the English uses "how" in a sentence, I often consider {mIw} as a possible translation.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">4/ As for the contexts when we refer to the ability as pertaining to a specific person (the subject), while in terms of semantics the 2 options seem identical, there may be some situations where it is grammatically preferrable to choose one over the other.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Example: for "they are studying the linguists' ability to translate", I would use {mughlaHghach}:</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Hol tejpu' mughlaHghach luHaD</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">This is because, with {mughmeH laH}, placement of {Hol tej} may be problematic and possibly ambiguous to the reader:</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">(?) Hol tejpu' mughmeH laH luHaD: may be misunderstood as "They are studying the ability to translate the linguists"</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">(?) mughmeH Hol tejpu' laH luHaD: I am uncomfortable with introducing anything between {laH} and its purpose clause - not to mention the fact that {Hol tej} is aready composed of 2 nouns. So which noun goes with "mughmeH"? It could be misunderstood as "They are studying the ability of the scientists (studying) the language-for-translating".</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">nuq boQub? :)</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">~ghItlhjaj</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">PS: SuStel, thanks for the link above to the post by Dr Okrand, very insightful!</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-05-16 17:52 GMT+02:00 SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>:<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_7494810841934244555moz-cite-prefix">On 5/16/2018 11:24 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">So
you'd accept that the purpose clause in a noun phrase can have an
object?</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p>Sure. What else do you think is happening with <b>qaSuchmeH 'eb?</b>
It's <b>SoH qaSuchmeH jIH 'eb.</b></p><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
This makes it more like a relative clause.</blockquote>
<br>
</span><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><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
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>
</span><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><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
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>
</span><p>There would be no point. Since the head noun is not inside the
purpose clause, there is nothing to disambiguate.<br>
</p><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</span><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><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
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>
</span><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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<pre class="m_7494810841934244555moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="m_7494810841934244555moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>