On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2018 3:57 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
mughlaHghach seems to me to be ambiguously synonymous with both mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH. Without context, I'd expect these two phrases to mean respectively "ability to translate" and "ability to be translated."mughlu'meH laH means ability in order for someone indefinite to translate, not ability to be translated.
My point was not whether passive voice was suitable for translating this term, which I'd say it is in this case, but how the term would be applied. mughlu'meH laH clearly does not apply to the translator. Therefore, I would expect it to be used in talking about a text.mughlu'meH laH clearly DOES apply to the translator. The only difference between mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH is that in the latter the subject doing the translating is explicitly indefinite. In the former there is NO subject. Purpose clauses are the only verbal clauses that allow you to ignore verb conjugation.
If you are talking about a particular translator's ability, would it make sense to talk about his mughlu'meH laH? It seems to me that -lu' would be out of place if the speaker and listener have a particular translator in mind.
But if you were talking whether a particular text were translatable (i.e., whether there was anyone who could translate it), wouldn't that be a logical context for talking about mughlu'meH laH? For instance, ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH chavlu'pu'be' as a way of saying "No one has figured out how to translate this manuscript."
This says "One has not achieved this manuscript's ability in
order that one translates." That is, the manuscript has an ability
to translate something (not itself). Another reading, making the
purpose clause attach to chav instead of laH,
would be In order that one translates this manuscript, one has
not achieved the ability. This is close to what you want,
but look closely at the grammar. And look also at this
post by Okrand, wherein he tries to resolve the problem of
applying purpose clauses to negative statements by avoiding the
problem altogether. (Did you carefully try not to achieve the
ability, so that you could translate the manuscript?)
I think you're confusing attaching a purpose clause to a verb (or clause) and attaching a purpose clause to a noun. Purpose clauses are different than other dependent clauses. You can attach purpose clauses to sentences like other dependent clauses (Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam), but you can also attach purpose clauses to nouns (qa'meH vIttlhegh). In the latter case, the resulting phrase, purpose clause plus head noun, is a noun phrase. Notice that in the example qa'meH vIttlhegh, the noun is not the subject of the purpose clause. Notice also that the purpose clause has not been given a subject or object: it's a proverb-for-replacing, not a proverb-for-him-to-replace.
The rules for when purpose clauses must take subjects or objects
are not given by Okrand. In general, it appears that purpose
clauses attached to verbs (sentences) get subjects (possibly
indefinite) and objects, while those attached to nouns don't. But
he's broken that general trend from time to time (qaSuchmeH
'eb; qIpmeH Qatlh'a'; and even the object-but-no-subject SuvwI'
DevmeH paq).
So would you agree that mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH are not synonymous, and that mughlaHghach is ambiguously synonymous with both of them?
No. mughmeH laH and mughlu'meH laH mean the same thing, though mughmeH laH is the expected form.
In the first form, the verb is completely without arguments. It's like in English how the translate in ability to translate has no subject or object at all. Klingon has no infinitives, but this is close.
In the second form, the verb is not close to an infinitive: it
has an explicit indefinite subject. Just as qaSuchmeH 'eb
means opportunity for me to visit you, mughlu'meH laH
means ability for someone indefinite to translate. There
is no significant difference between ability to translate
and ability for someone indefinite to translate. I
wouldn't bother with the -lu', but if it's there it makes
no difference. I could say jImughmeH laH ability for
me to translate, and now it means something different, but
adding an indefinite subject to a verb that had no subject to
begin with doesn't change the meaning. And I see no significant
difference between that meaning and mughlaHghach
ability to translate.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name