This all reminds me of a known issue with the {-meH}. One can't say {qaghommeH jIpaS} for "I was late to meet you", because the klingon sentence actually means "in order to meet you I was late". ~ nIghma' On Oct 24, 2017 5:30 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:44 AM, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I tried reading it without looking at the translation and I get: "For my son to act like a warrior, I taught him wrong; I realize that now." which is what I think the sentence indicated.
*-meH* seems to be used to mean both "in order to verb" and "for the purposes of verbing". It might just be a context thing. The intended meaning of *Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam* is "This day is good, for the purposes of someone dying", not "This day is good, and the reason it is good is so that someone dies."
Another example: {qanuQmeH jIjatlhbe'.}
This is ambiguous, in my opinion, because the scope of the negation is not clear. There are two readings: a) I didn't say anything. I did that, because I want to annoy you. (i.e. you would have prefered I say something) b) I didn't say anything that could annoy you. (i.e. I didn't insult or bother you)
I would probably interpret this as a), since I don't think the negation on the *jatlh* can include the *-meH* clause in its scope. If I wanted to say b), I would just use a relative clause: *DunuQlaHbogh vay' vIjatlhbe'*
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org