<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 5:00 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:796145BD-D1A5-40CC-84A2-B870EE5EECC6@mac.com">
<div class="">I think that {QIpmeH qatlh’a’?} is basically {-meH}
used as if it were to be used for a noun, but it’s used on a
verb, instead. It’s a kind of verb phrase instead of a verb
clause. It’s the same kind of infinitive (or near infinitive,
since we are so shy about calling this an infinitive). “Is it
difficult to hit?”</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The subtext is that if it’s not difficult to hit,
I’m not going to bother with it. The whole point of hitting it
is the difficulty.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Perhaps a better literal translation would be “Is it
in-order-to-hit difficult?”</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I had the same thought, but it kind of falls down when we
remember the most prominent example of this phenomenon: <b>Heghlu'meH
QaQ jajvam.</b> This sentence explicitly mentions its
(indefinite) subject, so it is not infinitive.</p>
<p>However, there's no rule I'm aware of that says purpose-marked
verbs modifying nouns have to be infinitive. In fact, we know
there is no such rule, since we have <b>qaSuchmeH 'eb</b><i>
opportunity for me to visit you.</i></p>
<p>So whether a purpose-marked verb is infinitive or not is not
prescribed in the grammar, which is a big reason why I avoid
casually declaring anything to be infinitive in Klingon.</p>
<p>But it's still possible to view purpose clauses as closer-bound
to their verbs than other dependent clauses. They are, after all,
described as a different class than the other "subordinate"
clauses, and they do only appear in front of a verb. It may be
that such clauses can be tightly bound to a verb to mean what
we're talking about.</p>
<p>However, they're not always this way. Our first purpose clause
modifying a verb is <b>jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH.</b> Notice
that the object of <b>nej</b> comes between <b>nej </b>and the
purpose clause. This argues against <b>luHoHmeH lunejtaH</b>
being some kind of "verb phrase" that gets treated as a verb the
way a noun phrase gets treated as a noun. The purpose clause here
really is a separate clause.</p>
<p>Maybe the "verb phrase" idea is valid when the main verb is a
verb of quality but not a verb of action. Who knows? This is why I
keep saying we don't really know <i>why</i> <b>qIpmeH Qatlh'a'</b>
and <b>Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam</b> mean what they mean. The
mechanics of the purpose clause are too unclear for us to be able
to explain them; we just have to take them on faith that they
work.<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>