Savan! I've been wondering about something. We have quite often the structure [verb-meH noun] in Klingon (e.g. ghojmeH mIw = lesson), so logically this could apply also to the noun {laH} (ability): mughmeH laH = ability to translate But then we can also have [verb-laHghach]:mughlaHghach = ability to translate They both seem to have the same meaning - but is there actually any difference? Are there cases when you would use the one and not the other? Thanks in advance for your advice and thoughts on this! ghItlhjaj Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
On 5/15/2018 3:26 PM, demonchaux.aurelie wrote:
We have quite often the structure [verb-meH noun] in Klingon (e.g. ghojmeH mIw = lesson), so logically this could apply also to the noun {laH} (ability):
mughmeH laH = ability to translate
But then we can also have [verb-laHghach]: mughlaHghach = ability to translate
They both seem to have the same meaning - but is there actually any difference?
Are there cases when you would use the one and not the other?
I'd say they're synonymous. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:28 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2018 3:26 PM, demonchaux.aurelie wrote:
We have quite often the structure [verb-meH noun] in Klingon (e.g. ghojmeH mIw = lesson), so logically this could apply also to the noun {laH} (ability):
mughmeH laH = ability to translate
But then we can also have [verb-laHghach]: mughlaHghach = ability to translate
They both seem to have the same meaning - but is there actually any difference?
Are there cases when you would use the one and not the other?
I'd say they're synonymous.
*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." ~mIp'av
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./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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. ~mIp'av
On 5/15/2018 4:28 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:01 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto: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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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." So would you agree that *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* are not synonymous, and that *mughlaHghach* is ambiguously synonymous with both of them? ~mIp'av
On 5/15/2018 8:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt> 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
On 5/15/2018 9:42 PM, SuStel wrote:
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**).*
Though this last might be interpreted as a noun-noun construction between the noun *SuvwI'* and the noun phrase *DevmeH paq, *so forget that one as an exceptional case. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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 <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt> 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" instead. I think the only genitive relation that is meaningful here is as the patient, as in "translation of the Iliad." Such a construction would be indistinguishable from a noun modified by a purpose clause with an object, and I actually saw it both ways as I wrote it and it seemed right to me since both grammatical interpretations led to the same result for me*, though of course that's useless if it doesn't lead others to the same interpretation. A partial justification for explicit objects on purpose clauses that modify nouns is *qaSuchmeH 'eb*. Due to the verb's conjugation, it has the implied object *SoH*. Or *SuvwI' DevmeH paq*, which I interpret as "Book for Guiding the Warrior," though it could be "Warrior's Guidebook." Even this last interpretation could be considered genitive as patient, since the apostrophe-s is not expressing ownership.
*One kind of grammatically ambiguous but semantically non-ambiguous construction I particularly like is a noun acting as either the subject of the preceding clause or the object of the following clause, as in *noychoHpa' wo'rIv vIqIHpu'*: *wo'rIv* can be either the subject of *noychoHpa'* or the object of *vIqIHpu'*; semantically it makes no difference unless context alters the meaning. But I digress. jatlh SuStel:
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.*
No, I recognize there's a difference between purpose clauses as used on verbs and as used on nouns, but as you pointed out in your translations of my sentence, it can be an ambiguous case when the purpose clause precedes the object. Purpose clauses modifying verbs are separate sentences as defined in TKD and need to follow the rule of rom. For instance, your first canon example of *Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam* has *-lu'* in the purpose clause and needs it, or else it means "Today is a good day for him/her to die." I see what you mean about *qa'meH vIttlhegh*, though. No *-lu'* is needed, even though they're for anyone to use for replacement. But the *vIttlhegh* is not merely used for replacing; it does the replacing, too, as a *pe'meH taj* is both used for cutting, and does the cutting. So while they're really the instruments, I also think of these nouns as the agent of the action in the purpose clause, so I envision the purpose clause in these cases as still following the rule of rom, with a null prefix, which leads me to a digression. You might part company with me here, but if the noun modified by a purpose clause is also the patient of the action, I tend to stick *-lu'* in there, e.g. *pe'lu'meH nav* "paper for one to cut." Digression over. In the case of *mughmeH laH*, or *SuchmeH 'eb*, the noun makes no sense as either agent or patient of the action of the purpose clause, and I take your point below that the purpose clause in these cases is without arguments; i.e., it's not the null prefix. jatlh SuStel:
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**).* jIjatlh:
So would you agree that *mughmeH laH* and *mughlu'meH laH* are not synonymous, and that *mughlaHghach* is ambiguously synonymous with both of them?
jatlh SuStel:
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.*
Although I agree with you now that adding *-lu'* doesn't add meaning in this case, I'd also add that it messes things up if we're talking about a particular translator: **mughlu'meH laHDaj* is nonsense. Now, instead of "his ability to translate," it's "his ability for one to translate." The verb without arguments is universally adaptable; the explicit indefinite subject is in conflict with the possessive suffix. ~mIp'av
On 5/16/2018 2:01 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:42 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto: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 <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt> 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"
I'm going to remove the negative, to avoid the negative *-meH* problem. *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. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/16/2018 9:29 AM, SuStel wrote:
*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.
Wait, I see another interpretation: *[NP:ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH] chavlu'pu' */One has achieved the ability in order that one translates this manuscript./ ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:44 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/16/2018 9:29 AM, SuStel wrote:
*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.
Wait, I see another interpretation:
*[NP:ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH] chavlu'pu' **One has achieved the ability in order that one translates this manuscript.*
So you'd accept that the purpose clause in a noun phrase can have an object? This makes it more like a relative clause. It would be interesting to compare nouns with purpose clauses to relative clauses. There are enough similarities that one could stumble over the differences. One difference is that the purpose clause must still precede that which it modifies, correct? And the topic marker can make either subject or object be the head noun of a relative clause, but I don't get that this could happen with a purpose clause. But this is a major digression that would need its own thread.
Let's bring this back to Aurélie's original point: would *ghItlhvam mughlaHghach chavlu'pu'* be a better way to say "The ability to translate this manuscript has been achieved" (colloquially, "They've figured out how to translate this manuscript")? It seems like a good choice to me, since *-ghach *nominalizes in such a way that *mughlaHghach* encompasses both "ability to translate" and "ability to be translated." ~mIp'av
On 5/16/2018 11:24 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
So you'd accept that the purpose clause in a noun phrase can have an object?
Sure. What else do you think is happening with *qaSuchmeH 'eb?* It's *SoH qaSuchmeH jIH 'eb.*
This makes it more like a relative clause.
All of the subordinate clauses can have subjects and objects. It's just the purpose clauses that are exceptional in that they can also NOT have subjects and objects. We simply don't know exactly when you can and can't drop the arguments. In general, purpose clauses attached to verbs have them and purpose clauses attached to nouns don't, but both sides of that are broken from time to time. Unlike a relative clause, the head noun of a purpose clause is NOT the subject or object of the clause.
It would be interesting to compare nouns with purpose clauses to relative clauses. There are enough similarities that one could stumble over the differences. One difference is that the purpose clause must still precede that which it modifies, correct?
Correct. A purpose clause precedes its head noun, while a relative clause puts its head noun into a subject or object position within the clause.
And the topic marker can make either subject or object be the head noun of a relative clause, but I don't get that this could happen with a purpose clause.
There would be no point. Since the head noun is not inside the purpose clause, there is nothing to disambiguate.
Let's bring this back to Aurélie's original point: would *ghItlhvam mughlaHghach chavlu'pu'* be a better way to say "The ability to translate this manuscript has been achieved" (colloquially, "They've figured out how to translate this manuscript")?
Now you're trying to add an object to a verb before a *-ghach* is applied, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. I don't personally subscribe to the idea that *-ghach*'d verbs can be given arguments before the *-ghach* is applied; Okrand declined to comment on this possibility when given the chance. Start with a root verb, add one or more suffixes, then add *-ghach.* That's it. No prefixes, no objects, no subjects, no other syntactic nouns or clauses go inside the scope of the *-ghach.* What you have above says /This manuscript's ability to translate has been achieved./ That is, the manuscript has been working to be able to translate something, and now it has the ability to do so.**What the manuscript is going to translate, or how it's going to translate it, is not said. **
It seems like a good choice to me, since *-ghach *nominalizes in such a way that *mughlaHghach* encompasses both "ability to translate" and "ability to be translated."
IT DOES NOT. *mughlaHghach* means only /ability to translate./ To mean /ability to be translated,/ you'd need a verb X that means /be translated,/ and then you could say *XlaHghach.* That verb is not *mugh.* Are you getting mixed up by the word /translate?/ In English you can say things like "I can't say that; it doesn't translate." That's not *mugh.* The message does not *mugh; *it gets *mugh*'d. Klingon *mugh* is transitive. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you both mIp'av and SuStel for your replies! When I started the thread, I had in mind more the ability of the translator, not the "translatability" of texts, but this is indeed a very interesting question! I'd like to contribute a few remarks to the debate after reading your messages. 1/ I would avoid writing {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH laH}, I think its meaning may be ambiguous or at least not very easy to figure out, perhaps because a reader may be tempted to associate the noun "laH" with the indefinite subject conveyed by {-lu'}. Also, a manuscript in and of itself cannot have "abilities". 2/ But there can exist a "possibility" for a manuscript to be translated. What do you make of {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH} ?
As in: ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH tu'lu'be' = There is no possibility to translate this manuscript / it is impossible to translate this manuscript
of course a simpler (safer) way to say it could be {ghItlhvam mughlaH pagh} = no one can translate this manuscript
3/ For the sentence "no one has figured out how to translate this manuscript", I would not consider using {laH}: {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH mIw Sam pagh} = no one has found a way for this manuscript to be translated Note: when the English uses "how" in a sentence, I often consider {mIw} as a possible translation. 4/ As for the contexts when we refer to the ability as pertaining to a specific person (the subject), while in terms of semantics the 2 options seem identical, there may be some situations where it is grammatically preferrable to choose one over the other. Example: for "they are studying the linguists' ability to translate", I would use {mughlaHghach}: Hol tejpu' mughlaHghach luHaD This is because, with {mughmeH laH}, placement of {Hol tej} may be problematic and possibly ambiguous to the reader: (?) Hol tejpu' mughmeH laH luHaD: may be misunderstood as "They are studying the ability to translate the linguists" (?) mughmeH Hol tejpu' laH luHaD: I am uncomfortable with introducing anything between {laH} and its purpose clause - not to mention the fact that {Hol tej} is aready composed of 2 nouns. So which noun goes with "mughmeH"? It could be misunderstood as "They are studying the ability of the scientists (studying) the language-for-translating". nuq boQub? :) ~ghItlhjaj PS: SuStel, thanks for the link above to the post by Dr Okrand, very insightful! 2018-05-16 17:52 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 5/16/2018 11:24 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
So you'd accept that the purpose clause in a noun phrase can have an object?
Sure. What else do you think is happening with *qaSuchmeH 'eb?* It's *SoH qaSuchmeH jIH 'eb.*
This makes it more like a relative clause.
All of the subordinate clauses can have subjects and objects. It's just the purpose clauses that are exceptional in that they can also NOT have subjects and objects. We simply don't know exactly when you can and can't drop the arguments. In general, purpose clauses attached to verbs have them and purpose clauses attached to nouns don't, but both sides of that are broken from time to time.
Unlike a relative clause, the head noun of a purpose clause is NOT the subject or object of the clause.
It would be interesting to compare nouns with purpose clauses to relative clauses. There are enough similarities that one could stumble over the differences. One difference is that the purpose clause must still precede that which it modifies, correct?
Correct. A purpose clause precedes its head noun, while a relative clause puts its head noun into a subject or object position within the clause.
And the topic marker can make either subject or object be the head noun of a relative clause, but I don't get that this could happen with a purpose clause.
There would be no point. Since the head noun is not inside the purpose clause, there is nothing to disambiguate.
Let's bring this back to Aurélie's original point: would *ghItlhvam mughlaHghach chavlu'pu'* be a better way to say "The ability to translate this manuscript has been achieved" (colloquially, "They've figured out how to translate this manuscript")?
Now you're trying to add an object to a verb before a *-ghach* is applied, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. I don't personally subscribe to the idea that *-ghach*'d verbs can be given arguments before the *-ghach* is applied; Okrand declined to comment on this possibility when given the chance. Start with a root verb, add one or more suffixes, then add *-ghach.* That's it. No prefixes, no objects, no subjects, no other syntactic nouns or clauses go inside the scope of the *-ghach.*
What you have above says *This manuscript's ability to translate has been achieved.* That is, the manuscript has been working to be able to translate something, and now it has the ability to do so. What the manuscript is going to translate, or how it's going to translate it, is not said.
It seems like a good choice to me, since *-ghach *nominalizes in such a way that *mughlaHghach* encompasses both "ability to translate" and "ability to be translated."
IT DOES NOT. *mughlaHghach* means only *ability to translate.* To mean *ability to be translated,* you'd need a verb X that means *be translated,* and then you could say *XlaHghach.* That verb is not *mugh.*
Are you getting mixed up by the word *translate?* In English you can say things like "I can't say that; it doesn't translate." That's not *mugh.* The message does not *mugh; *it gets *mugh*'d. Klingon *mugh* is transitive.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/16/2018 4:40 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
2/ But there can exist a "possibility" for a manuscript to be translated. What do you make of {ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH} ?
As in: ghItlhvam mughlu'meH DuH tu'lu'be' = There is no possibility to translate this manuscript / it is impossible to translate this manuscript
of course a simpler (safer) way to say it could be {ghItlhvam mughlaH pagh} = no one can translate this manuscript
This isn't an example of *mughlu'meH DuH;* this is an example of *mughlu'meH tu'lu'be'. *The *DuH* just happens to be in the way. Look, just drop the *-lu'* and everybody is happy. *ghItlhvam [mughmeH DuH] tu'lu'be'.* The bracketed phrase is a purpose clause with a head noun meaning /possibility for translating./ It avoids the negative purpose clause problem; it avoids arguments about objects on purpose clauses. Better yet, just say *ghItlhvam mughlaHbe' vay'* and avoid the whole mess. Choose a more appropriate subject for a given situation. Add *laH ghajbe'* afterward if you like. There's no reason to insist on mirroring English syntax. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Aurélie Demonchaux -
demonchaux.aurelie
-
Ed Bailey -
SuStel