On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:42 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/15/2018 8:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

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?)

Your first translation assigns one of many possible genitive relations between ghItlhvam and laH, but I can't fault you for interpreting it differently than I intended since I proposed the example so you could pick it apart and we can discuss how the grammar works. However, it would be more neutral, if unidiomatic, to say "ability for one to translate of this manuscript"

ghItlhvam mughlu'meH, laH chavlu'pu'
In order that one translates this manuscript, one has achieved the ability.

[N1:ghItlhvam] [N2:mughlu'meH laH] chavlu'pu'
One has achieved this manuscript's ability for one to translate.

I don't see any other possible interpretations of this sentence. What are the many possible genitive relations?

In the first interpretation, the indefinite subject plans to translates the manuscript. In the second interpretation, the manuscript has an ability of translation. The -lu' might screw that up, but at best that makes the interpretation invalid; it doesn't give someone ELSE the ability to translate the manuscript, and it doesn't change the manuscript's ability to translate something into an ability for someone to translate IT.