<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 10/15/2019 1:56 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvhDi2xP-rWNzEBzN_z5ru0yzbMojTf2DcMdcx+FbJgng@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">Unless I've missed something, the only
situation where we know that a verb is considered to have no
subject and to not be in any person is when it's used with
{-ghach}. Given the framework of the language as we currently
know it, it makes more sense to me to interpret {ghojmeH taj} as
having an impersonal third-person verb, rather than a
subjectless quasi-infinitive. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't see we have any evidence to support the notion that <b>ghojmeH
taj</b> means <i>in-order-that-someone-unspecified-learns
knife.</i> We do, on the other hand, have phrases like <b>ja'chuqmeH
rojHom</b><i> truce (in order) to confer,</i> in the sentence <b>ja'chuqmeH
rojHom neH jaghla'</b><i> The enemy commander wishes a truce (in
order) to confer,</i> which we know is what Kruge is told about
Kirk — it would have to be a <b>maja'chuqmeH rojHom</b> in that
circumstance. Yes, you could argue that this line is not said in
Klingon in the movie, but this is obviously meant to be the very
line from the movie. You'd also have to explain why we don't say <b>ghojlu'meH
taj.</b></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvhDi2xP-rWNzEBzN_z5ru0yzbMojTf2DcMdcx+FbJgng@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">We know that Klingon has impersonal
third-person verbs that are still conceived of as having
unspecified subjects: {SIS}, {taH pagh taHbe'.} <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think it's all that clear that <b>taH pagh taHbe'</b> is
an example of an unspecified subject. I don't think of this line
as <i>Either an unspecified someone goes on or an unspecified
someone doesn't go on;</i> I think of it as <i>Either
(unconjugated) go on or (unconjugated) not go on.</i></p>
<p>As for <b>SIS</b> and other weather-related words, this isn't
just a case of having an unspecified subject; it's a case of not
explicitly mentioning the subject because it's understood. It's
idiomatic not to say the subject. What IS the subject? Typically <b>muD</b>
or <b>chal. SIS</b> doesn't just mean <i>something unspecified
rains;</i> it means <i>something-we-all-know-about-so-it's-customary-not-to-mention-it
rains.</i> It's not customary not to mention the subject of <b>ja'chuqmeH
rojHom;</b> it literally has no subject.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvhDi2xP-rWNzEBzN_z5ru0yzbMojTf2DcMdcx+FbJgng@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">We know that in other instances where
English or other languages usually use infinitives that Klingon
still requires a subject, explicit or otherwise, like in
sentences with {'e'} or {neH}. E.g. "I want to drink" is
translated with an explicit subject for "drink": {jItlhutlh
vIneH.} <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not arguing based on English infinitives, but based on
canonical usage and the meaning of the word infinitive.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvhDi2xP-rWNzEBzN_z5ru0yzbMojTf2DcMdcx+FbJgng@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">It's possible that some {-meH} verbs
modifying nouns are another exception to the "verbs have
subjects and persons" pattern like {-ghach}, but Maltz hasn't
said so one way or the other. Until he does, I don't see a
reason to make an exception to this pattern just for some uses
of {-meH}, when the existing pattern can handle those uses just
fine as impersonal third-person verbs.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't see any reason to believe that there's a rule that says
all verbs must have subjects and persons unless exempted. The fact
that Klingon lacks an infinitive form for verbs just means that
when infinitives occur, they're not marked.<br>
</p>
<p><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>