On 7/31/2017 11:20 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
Sometimes it is speculated that you need a subject if the purpose clause attaches to a sentence instead of a noun Because grammar terms confuse me, could you write an example of this ?
I already did. The noun phrase *ghojmeH taj* is a purpose clause, *ghojmeH,* attached to a head noun, *taj. taj* is not the subject of *ghojmeH;* the knife does not learn anything. It's not an /in order that he/she learns knife;/ it's a /knife for learning./ There is no subject. It's not an indefinite subject because there's no *-lu';* there is simply no subject. This is an infinitive, or as close to an infinitive as Klingon gets. An even more interesting example is *ja'chuqmeH rojHom* /truce (in order) to confer./ The purpose clause has a suffixes that says the subject is a plural entity whose constituents do something to each other, but there is no subject in the phrase. There /might/ be people ready to confer during a truce, but the phrase doesn't say that. Or take the simple *vutmeH 'un*/pot for preparing food./ The pot is a pot for preparing food whether or not there is someone about to prepare food in it. *vutmeH* has no subject, implied or otherwise. But there are tons of examples where a purpose clause, attached to a sentence instead of a noun, gets prefixes and suffixes and a subject. *Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam* is a well-known one. Or *cha'puj vIngevmeH chaw' HInobneS,* which even has an object. Given that the distinction seems to be "infinitive" for nouns and "finite" for sentences, I probably should have written *jatlhqu'lu'meH.* *shrug* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name