<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">SuStel answered this comprehensively. I just want to make sure that you get an answer is focused on your specific misunderstanding of {-meH}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What you describe as your problem sounds like you only think of {-meH} modifying a noun. As such, since the verb with {-meH} precedes the noun, it’s easy to think of that noun as being the subject of the verb, but it isn’t. {ghojmeH taj} doesn’t mean “In order that the knife learnsâ€. {taj} is not the subject of {ghojmeH}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the sentence {‘IHqu’ ghojmeH taj}, {taj} is the subject of {‘IHqu’}, but {ghojmeH} is merely modifying (or describing) the knife. What kind of knife is it? It’s an “in order to learn†knife. The knife’s purpose is that someone learns to use a knife and this is the knife that person practices with while learning to use the knife. By the way, that knife is beautiful. {‘IHqu’ taj} is a complete sentence. {ghojmeH taj} is just a noun phrase. There is no sentence there.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Many times, you will encounter {-meH} verbs that modify a noun with no subject or object in the phrase. This is as close to an infinitive (like “to learnâ€, which has no subject) as Klingon has. It’s really the only time that a verb in a well-formed Klingon sentence has no subject; not even an indefinite subject. No subject at all. There are instances where such a verb may have a subject and perhaps even an object, but if the verb with {-meH} is modifying a noun, it often has neither subject nor object.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But verbs with {-meH} modifying a verb, there is no almost-infinitive form. Your example of {tlhInganpu’ luleghlu’meH Suv tlhInganpu’} is a case in point. You have what would be a complete sentence assigned a role as a dependent clause by adding {-meH} to the verb, and that entire clause precedes the clause that has the main verb in it. The purpose is not a simple “to seeâ€. The purpose is “In order that one sees Klingons.†{legh} has both a subject (indefinite) and an object {tlhInganpu’}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The only grammatical construction in Klingon that always gives a noun a dual role, both in a dependent clause and in the main clause, is the Relative Clause created by adding {-bogh} to the verb. In that case, the “head noun†(can be the subject or object of the dependent clause) of the Relative Clause is also a noun in the main clause (can be the subject or object of the main clause).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But this is not true for {-meH}.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 15, 2019, at 8:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <<a href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" class="">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">I want to say "klingons fight in order to be seen".</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Suppose I write:</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">{tlhInganpu' luleghlu'meH Suv tlhInganpu'}</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Would it be correct ?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">What puzzles me is this..</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">The way "I've gotten used to the {-meH}", is that the subject of the {-meH} phrase, is the subject of the phrase which follows it too.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">But is that the case, or can the object of the {-meH} phrase, be the subject of the phrase which follows it ?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">So, could I write {tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan, jach tlhIngan} for "the klingon shouts, in order that the romulan sees him" ?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">~ bara'qa'</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>