Thinking more about this, when a verb with {-meH} describes a noun, it isn’t a dependent clause at all. It’s merely a noun phrase. It’s noteworthy that the glosses that Okrand gives us never include the word “to”. That’s because (with the near exception of verbs with {-meH} describing nouns), there is no infinitive in Klingon. That’s part of the paradox Okrand faced when told he had to translate “To be, or not to be.” First, he had no verb for “be”, and second, he had no infinitive. It’s one of the great improvisations of his career as the creator of the Klingon language. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Oct 15, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

SuStel answered this comprehensively. I just want to make sure that you get an answer is focused on your specific misunderstanding of {-meH}.

What you describe as your problem sounds like you only think of {-meH} modifying a noun. As such, since the verb with {-meH} precedes the noun, it’s easy to think of that noun as being the subject of the verb, but it isn’t. {ghojmeH taj} doesn’t mean “In order that the knife learns”. {taj} is not the subject of {ghojmeH}.

In the sentence {‘IHqu’ ghojmeH taj}, {taj} is the subject of {‘IHqu’}, but {ghojmeH} is merely modifying (or describing) the knife. What kind of knife is it? It’s an “in order to learn” knife. The knife’s purpose is that someone learns to use a knife and this is the knife that person practices with while learning to use the knife. By the way, that knife is beautiful. {‘IHqu’ taj} is a complete sentence. {ghojmeH taj} is just a noun phrase. There is no sentence there.

Many times, you will encounter {-meH} verbs that modify a noun with no subject or object in the phrase. This is as close to an infinitive (like “to learn”, which has no subject) as Klingon has. It’s really the only time that a verb in a well-formed Klingon sentence has no subject; not even an indefinite subject. No subject at all. There are instances where such a verb may have a subject and perhaps even an object, but if the verb with {-meH} is modifying a noun, it often has neither subject nor object.

But verbs with {-meH} modifying a verb, there is no almost-infinitive form. Your example of {tlhInganpu’ luleghlu’meH Suv tlhInganpu’} is a case in point. You have what would be a complete sentence assigned a role as a dependent clause by adding {-meH} to the verb, and that entire clause precedes the clause that has the main verb in it. The purpose is not a simple “to see”. The purpose is “In order that one sees Klingons.” {legh} has both a subject (indefinite) and an object {tlhInganpu’}.

The only grammatical construction in Klingon that always gives a noun a dual role, both in a dependent clause and in the main clause, is the Relative Clause created by adding {-bogh} to the verb. In that case, the “head noun” (can be the subject or object of the dependent clause) of the Relative Clause is also a noun in the main clause (can be the subject or object of the main clause).

But this is not true for {-meH}.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

...

On Oct 15, 2019, at 8:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:

I want to say "klingons fight in order to be seen".

Suppose I write:

{tlhInganpu' luleghlu'meH Suv tlhInganpu'}

Would it be correct ?

What puzzles me is this..

The way "I've gotten used to the {-meH}", is that the subject of the {-meH} phrase, is the subject of the phrase which follows it too.

But is that the case, or can the object of the {-meH} phrase, be the subject of the phrase which follows it ?

So, could I write {tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan, jach tlhIngan} for "the klingon shouts, in order that the romulan sees him" ?

~ bara'qa' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

You say, “I’m not sure it’s quite right to say that a {-meH} verb modifying a noun can have no subject.” That might be why I quite carefully never said that. You are arguing with a straw man. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:46 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote: Many times, you will encounter {-meH} verbs that modify a noun with no subject or object in the phrase. This is as close to an infinitive (like “to learn”, which has no subject) as Klingon has. It’s really the only time that a verb in a well-formed Klingon sentence has no subject; not even an indefinite subject. No subject at all. There are instances where such a verb may have a subject and perhaps even an object, but if the verb with {-meH} is modifying a noun, it often has neither subject nor object.

I'm not sure it's quite right to say that a {-meH} verb modifying a noun can have no subject. Apparently it's not common for noun-purpose verbs to use {-lu'}, but there's still an implied, vague subject: somebody is learning from a {ghojmeH taj}. The subject is an unspecified person or thing, so there's just the third-person null prefix.

It's similar to how the infinitive "to be" was translated as {taH pagh taHbe'} (KGT, p. 194): There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, of a non-Klingon actor who attempted to play the lead in the original Klingon version of Shakespeare's <Hamlet> but was shouted off the stage when he began the famous soliloquy by saying, {taQ pagh taQbe'} ("To be weird or not to be weird"), rather than the correct {taH pagh taHbe'} ("To be or not to be"; literally, "[one] continues or [one] does not continue"). The gloss shows there's an implied [one] as the subject of the pseudo-infinitive {taH}. I assume the reason it's in brackets is because there's nothing explicit in the sentence marking the subject as indefinite. (I don't know why there's no {-lu'}, but I'm not going to argue with the Bard. I would like to ask Maltz about {-lu'} and {-meH} sometime.) This suggests that simple verbs, when they're used in the places other languages might use infinitives, are still conceived of as having implied subjects.

(I recall reading a while back somewhere that some languages, including many Native American ones, don't have infinitive forms, and instead use other constructions like an unmarked third person form, and I thought "Aha, that must be where Klingon gets it from.") _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 10/15/2019 1:56 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

Unless I've missed something, the only situation where we know that a verb is considered to have no subject and to not be in any person is when it's used with {-ghach}. Given the framework of the language as we currently know it, it makes more sense to me to interpret {ghojmeH taj} as having an impersonal third-person verb, rather than a subjectless quasi-infinitive.

I don't see we have any evidence to support the notion that *ghojmeH taj* means /in-order-that-someone-unspecified-learns knife./ We do, on the other hand, have phrases like *ja'chuqmeH rojHom*/truce (in order) to confer,/ in the sentence *ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla'*/The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer,/ which we know is what Kruge is told about Kirk — it would have to be a *maja'chuqmeH rojHom* in that circumstance. Yes, you could argue that this line is not said in Klingon in the movie, but this is obviously meant to be the very line from the movie. You'd also have to explain why we don't say *ghojlu'meH taj.*

We know that Klingon has impersonal third-person verbs that are still conceived of as having unspecified subjects: {SIS}, {taH pagh taHbe'.}

I don't think it's all that clear that *taH pagh taHbe'* is an example of an unspecified subject. I don't think of this line as /Either an unspecified someone goes on or an unspecified someone doesn't go on;/ I think of it as /Either (unconjugated) go on or (unconjugated) not go on./ As for *SIS* and other weather-related words, this isn't just a case of having an unspecified subject; it's a case of not explicitly mentioning the subject because it's understood. It's idiomatic not to say the subject. What IS the subject? Typically *muD* or *chal. SIS* doesn't just mean /something unspecified rains;/ it means /something-we-all-know-about-so-it's-customary-not-to-mention-it rains./ It's not customary not to mention the subject of *ja'chuqmeH rojHom;* it literally has no subject.

We know that in other instances where English or other languages usually use infinitives that Klingon still requires a subject, explicit or otherwise, like in sentences with {'e'} or {neH}. E.g. "I want to drink" is translated with an explicit subject for "drink": {jItlhutlh vIneH.}

I'm not arguing based on English infinitives, but based on canonical usage and the meaning of the word infinitive.

It's possible that some {-meH} verbs modifying nouns are another exception to the "verbs have subjects and persons" pattern like {-ghach}, but Maltz hasn't said so one way or the other. Until he does, I don't see a reason to make an exception to this pattern just for some uses of {-meH}, when the existing pattern can handle those uses just fine as impersonal third-person verbs.

I don't see any reason to believe that there's a rule that says all verbs must have subjects and persons unless exempted. The fact that Klingon lacks an infinitive form for verbs just means that when infinitives occur, they're not marked. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

The question isn’t “whose purpose”. The purpose of the action of screaming. The {-meH} clause is modifying the verb {jach}. It explains the purpose of the action, not of the actor. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’

On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

SuStel:

...

tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan jach tlhIngan means In order that the Romulan sees the Klingon, the Klingon shouts.

There is still something which confuses me..

We have the sentence:

{tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan jach tlhIngan}

The first part of the sentence, the {tlhIngan leghmeH romuluSngan}, describes a purpose; the purpose that the "romulan sees the klingon".

I can't understand "whose purpose this purpose is". Is this a purpose, which the romulan has ? Because if the romulan has this purpose, then how is it possible that someone else, i.e. the klingon, is the one acting towards that purpose in the second part of the sentence ?

Or is this purpose, just "a purpose in general", case in which it *does* make sense for someone other than the romulan, to be acting towards that purpose ?

- bara'qa' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Whose purpose it is will be subject to context. In this case, it's the Klingon's purpose because the Klingon is trying to get the Romulan's attention. The subject of the main clause will usually be the one acting toward the purpose, and I can't think of an example where that is not the case, but it's possible someone could construct a sentence that defies this expectation.

Something with a stative verb would work. *SaqlaHmeH 'orwI'pu' wovqu' wovmoHwI'mey* "The lights are very bright so the pilots can land."

(I'm ignoring sentences like *qIpmeH Qatlh'a',* whose grammar I find to be fairly impenetrable.)

They're not that impenetrable. It seems that Okrand is using the idea of "for the purpose of accomplishing something" in a somewhat different way than the examples in TKD. Those examples use *XmeH Y Z* to mean "Z does Y, and does so for the purpose/intent of accomplishing X". In later examples like *qIpmeH Qatlh'a'*, it seems to be also used with stative verbs to mean something like "Z has quality Y for/regarding the purposes of accomplishing X". So *qIpmeH Qatlh* would be "For the purposes of [one] hitting it, it is difficult" or "As far as hitting it is concerned, it is difficult" or just "It is difficult to hit." Something similar is used with* Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam* and *tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS*. They're describing something's usefulness/suitability/quality/etc. towards achieving a purpose, not describing a thing happening to bring about a purpose. I assume context helps listeners determine whether something like *vIqIpmeH Qatlh* is intended to mean "For the purposes of me hitting him, he's difficult"/"He's difficult for me to hit" or to mean "He's difficult, for the purpose of me hitting him"/"He's difficult so that I'll hit him."

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:46 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I understand how the English means that; I don't see how the Klingon means that.

Simple: It means that, because Okrand has been using that Klingon construction to mean that. Either the Klingon sentences that use it are wrong, including the most famous Klingon aphorism, or he is using an additional meaning of *-meH*, besides "in order to", that he hasn't talked about. Until someone asks him about it, we're left to deduce its usage and meaning from the examples we have. I can think of four at the moment: 1. *qIpmeH Qatlh'a'** Difficult to hit?* (ST5) 2. *Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam **Today is a good day to die.* (TKW) 3. *tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS* *Drinking fake ale is better than drinking water.* (TKW) 4. *QaQ qeylIS Duj / ghe'tor 'elmeH / yapbe' may' 'e' Sovchu'* *Kahless knows by instinct / A fight will not suffice / To enter the land of the dead.* (PB 96-96)

From the translations, we know that these constructions are intended to discuss the subject's suitability for achieving the purpose in the purpose clause. So this must be another use of purpose clauses, even if we don't know the details. It's still being used to talk about purposes, just in a different way, so it's possible he didn't think of it as a special case of purpose clauses that he needed to discuss explicitly.

I understand both the confusion and what Okrand is probably doing. I have, myself, been stressed by Okrand making what seems to be a strict definition of how things work, and then stretching that definition in a new direction without explaining it, causing me angst. [Don’t get me started on {-moH}…] qIpmeH Qatlh’a’? What’s probably going on here? I think that we are accustomed to {-meH} used to make a noun PHRASE in examples like {ghojmeH taj} (a “to learn” knife) so that the verb with {-meH} is a kind of infinitive that has no subject. It’s not really a noun CLAUSE. It’s just a noun PHRASE. What kind of knife is it? It’s a “to learn” knife. Anyone who uses it would presumably be learning. It’s even more vague than {-lu’}. We don’t care about who is learning. We’re leaning more toward the general concept of learning. This knife promotes that concept. When a verb with {-meH} describes the purpose of a verb’s action, we are accustomed to the verb with {-meH} being a dependent CLAUSE, complete with subject and maybe an object. I think that {QIpmeH qatlh’a’?} is basically {-meH} used as if it were to be used for a noun, but it’s used on a verb, instead. It’s a kind of verb phrase instead of a verb clause. It’s the same kind of infinitive (or near infinitive, since we are so shy about calling this an infinitive). “Is it difficult to hit?” The subtext is that if it’s not difficult to hit, I’m not going to bother with it. The whole point of hitting it is the difficulty. Perhaps a better literal translation would be “Is it in-order-to-hit difficult?” Much like you might consider, “Is it blue difficult?” or “is it tall difficult?” What kind of difficult are we interested in here? We’re interested in the “to hit” difficulty. It’s just describing what kind of difficult the task is. Is it a task difficult in a specific way that I’m interested in, as in the general concept of hitting something? Is it difficult to hit? Am I making sense here? Does this help at all? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Oct 16, 2019, at 3:46 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/16/2019 3:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:24 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: Whose purpose it is will be subject to context. In this case, it's the Klingon's purpose because the Klingon is trying to get the Romulan's attention. The subject of the main clause will usually be the one acting toward the purpose, and I can't think of an example where that is not the case, but it's possible someone could construct a sentence that defies this expectation.

Something with a stative verb would work. SaqlaHmeH 'orwI'pu' wovqu' wovmoHwI'mey "The lights are very bright so the pilots can land." (I'm ignoring sentences like qIpmeH Qatlh'a', whose grammar I find to be fairly impenetrable.)

They're not that impenetrable. It seems that Okrand is using the idea of "for the purpose of accomplishing something" in a somewhat different way than the examples in TKD. Those examples use XmeH Y Z to mean "Z does Y, and does so for the purpose/intent of accomplishing X". In later examples like qIpmeH Qatlh'a', it seems to be also used with stative verbs to mean something like "Z has quality Y for/regarding the purposes of accomplishing X".

So qIpmeH Qatlh would be "For the purposes of [one] hitting it, it is difficult" or "As far as hitting it is concerned, it is difficult" or just "It is difficult to hit." Something similar is used with Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam and tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS. They're describing something's usefulness/suitability/quality/etc. towards achieving a purpose, not describing a thing happening to bring about a purpose.

I assume context helps listeners determine whether something like vIqIpmeH Qatlh is intended to mean "For the purposes of me hitting him, he's difficult"/"He's difficult for me to hit" or to mean "He's difficult, for the purpose of me hitting him"/"He's difficult so that I'll hit him." I understand how the English means that; I don't see how the Klingon means that. "Z has quality Y for/regarding the purposes of accomplishing X" isn't what the line qIpmeH Qatlh['a'] is saying. It's literally saying something is difficult so that something hits.

I feel fairly certain that this line came about due to a sloppy translation. Okrand was handed the line Difficult to hit?, which is an adjective + infinitive restricting the scope of the adjective (it's not difficult in general; it's difficult to hit) and mistook it for a verb + infinitive expressing the purpose of the verb. So he constructed a Klingon purpose clause. Being canon now, he would rather just accept the grammar now and move on. That it can be done is clear, but exactly how it means what it's supposed to mean remains inadequately explained.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

I think we’re pretty close to being on the same page here. There was a time when I mistakenly thought that verbs with {-meH} worked one way modifying nouns (as infinitives) and a different way modifying verbs (as dependent clauses), and I was corrected. Canon examples of whole clauses modifying nouns were produced. There weren’t any infinitive-like examples when the {-meH} verb modified the main verb, however. So, that’s been the model I’ve been working with in the intervening years. And this is why I said that MOST OF THE TIME, nouns modified by a verb with {-meH} had this quasi-infinitive form. I didn’t say always, because there are counterexamples. Still, the majority of examples fit this pattern, so trying to discount this as a valid interpretation of the form is a hard argument to win. It’s pretty clear that the verb with {-meH} usually has no subject when it modifies a noun. In that model, nouns could be modified by infinitive {-meH} verbs or by {-meH} clauses, but verbs only were modified by {-meH} clauses. Again, my model was incomplete. So, maybe there is no significance in this split between infinitive {-meH} and {-meH} clauses. Maybe the significant difference is that stative verbs and nouns are alike, and action verbs are different. A {-meH} clause describes the purpose of an action, but for a stative verb or a noun, maybe as you say, it is more tightly bound to that which it modifies in a way that is more loosely bound to the concept of purpose. For a noun, it defines the type of noun, setting it apart from the larger class of nouns not bound by the {-meH} verb. The world has many kinds of knives. A to-learn knife is a specific subset, defined by the {-meH} verb. It is defined not so much by an action of someone learning as it is by the infinitive concept of learning. Here, “learn” is an abstract concept. It’s a “learn-knife”, a “to learn knife”, an “in order to learn” knife. The whole reason we’re using {ghojmeH} is to separate out this type of knife from all others. So, let’s apply this idea to the canon quote I’ve always hated so much: {Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam}. This day is good. What kind of good is it? There are many kinds of good. This day is in-order-that-one-dies good. I suspect the {-lu’} is optional, and he might have tossed it in so that nobody would be confused, suspecting that he’d put a verb suffix on a noun. Part of the discussion has already brought up the topic of how close an indefinite subject is to an infinitive. One has no subject. The other has an undetermined subject. Maybe there was some kind of subtle thing Okrand was trying to do here by including {-lu’}. Maybe it was just whim. Unless he explains the example, and he probably never will, we have to guess. My point is that while you notice a difference when Okrand applies a {-meH} verb to a stative verb, my interpretation of that difference is that he’s telling us the adverbial quality of that stative verb that sets it apart from other kinds of that state. Days can be good in many kinds of ways, but THIS day is good in the for-the-purpose-that-somebody-dies way. It’s not just generically good. It’s specifically good. It has a peculiar and unique quality of goodness that I’m describing here. To stretch things back to the concept of purpose, what is the purpose-quality of the goodness that today has? It has a “in order that one dies” purpose-quality of goodness. It may generally stink as far as days go. It might be an otherwise boring day, having no noteworthy generic goodness to it. But, by god, when differentiating the specific kind of goodness that has relates to the purpose of somebody dying, today is that kind of good. Especially if their throat is slit by a running man using a {ghojmeH taj}. At night. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Oct 17, 2019, at 10:40 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/16/2019 5:00 PM, Will Martin wrote:

...

I think that {QIpmeH qatlh’a’?} is basically {-meH} used as if it were to be used for a noun, but it’s used on a verb, instead. It’s a kind of verb phrase instead of a verb clause. It’s the same kind of infinitive (or near infinitive, since we are so shy about calling this an infinitive). “Is it difficult to hit?”

The subtext is that if it’s not difficult to hit, I’m not going to bother with it. The whole point of hitting it is the difficulty.

Perhaps a better literal translation would be “Is it in-order-to-hit difficult?” I had the same thought, but it kind of falls down when we remember the most prominent example of this phenomenon: Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam. This sentence explicitly mentions its (indefinite) subject, so it is not infinitive.

However, there's no rule I'm aware of that says purpose-marked verbs modifying nouns have to be infinitive. In fact, we know there is no such rule, since we have qaSuchmeH 'eb opportunity for me to visit you.

So whether a purpose-marked verb is infinitive or not is not prescribed in the grammar, which is a big reason why I avoid casually declaring anything to be infinitive in Klingon.

But it's still possible to view purpose clauses as closer-bound to their verbs than other dependent clauses. They are, after all, described as a different class than the other "subordinate" clauses, and they do only appear in front of a verb. It may be that such clauses can be tightly bound to a verb to mean what we're talking about.

However, they're not always this way. Our first purpose clause modifying a verb is jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH. Notice that the object of nej comes between nej and the purpose clause. This argues against luHoHmeH lunejtaH being some kind of "verb phrase" that gets treated as a verb the way a noun phrase gets treated as a noun. The purpose clause here really is a separate clause.

Maybe the "verb phrase" idea is valid when the main verb is a verb of quality but not a verb of action. Who knows? This is why I keep saying we don't really know why qIpmeH Qatlh'a' and Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam mean what they mean. The mechanics of the purpose clause are too unclear for us to be able to explain them; we just have to take them on faith that they work.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org