<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 10/16/2019 4:52 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsJ+g7RfpcTSUuM+-90oTW5v__ruMvXVX13tEJB-SzRfg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:46 PM
SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I understand how the English means that; I don't see how
the Klingon means that. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>Simple: It means that, because Okrand has been using that
Klingon construction to mean that.<span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> Either the
Klingon sentences that use it are wrong, including the most
famous Klingon aphorism, or he is using an additional
meaning of <b>-meH</b>, besides "in order to", that he
hasn't talked about.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I understand the "it just is" explanation. I understand and
accept that the construction exists and is valid, and I understand
that Okrand can arbitrarily declare that something is so. That's
not my problem. My problem is that there is no "purpose" in this
kind of purpose clause.</p>
<p>Whenever Okrand expands some grammatical point, it's always based
in some way on the meaning of the original grammar. When he
expanded <b>-vaD</b> to include indirect objects, he was building
on the original idea of a beneficiary. ("While the object of the
verb is the recipient of the action, the indirect object may be
considered the beneficiary.") He didn't just make it up out of
whole cloth. When he expanded the idea of the "topic" suffix <b>-'e'</b>
to include disambiguating a relative clause, it's not difficult to
see how the <b>-'e'</b> draws our attention to the head noun as
the important part of the clause.</p>
<p>But with <b>qIpmeH Qatlh</b> or <b>Heghlu'meH QaQ</b> we have
little or no link to any kind of purpose. At best you could say,
if your purpose is hitting, that target is difficult; if your
purpose is dying, today is good. But why aren't these <b>Qatlh
qIpmeH DoS</b> and <b>QaQ Heghlu'meH jajvam?</b></p>
<p>But when you consider these to be overly literal translation from
English, everything suddenly makes sense. A phrase like <i>difficult
to hit</i> sounds like it's made up of <i>be difficult</i> and
<i>in order to hit,</i> but that's not what the English is
actually saying. English just happens to have a construction of <i>adjective+infinitive</i>
that is a way of restricting the scope of the adjective. It's not
a purpose.<br>
</p>
<p>Again, I accept that this purpose clause + verb of quality
construction exists in Klingon. I see it there in black and white.
I'm just saying we don't have a good explanation for why it means
what it means, and as such, it makes a lousy set of data points
when analyzing the role of purpose clauses in sentences.<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>