-lu' and -'egh with {-meH}ed nouns
1: QongmeH Duj sleeper ship (ship for the purpose of sleeping) maj.. 'a jIqonchugh {Qonglu'meH Duj}, vaj chay' pIm ? "ship in order that someone unspecified sleeps" 'e' yajnISlu''a' ? But isn't the {QongmeH Duj} unspecified too ? 2: "device in order that someone examines himself" jIjatlh vIneH. nuq vIqonnIS ? {nuD'eghmeH jan} {nuD'eghlu'meH jan} ghap ? ~ 'elaDya'ngan
On 11/11/2020 9:16 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
1:
QongmeH Duj sleeper ship (ship for the purpose of sleeping)
maj..
'a jIqonchugh {Qonglu'meH Duj}, vaj chay' pIm ? "ship in order that someone unspecified sleeps" 'e' yajnISlu''a' ? But isn't the {QongmeH Duj} unspecified too ?
The question is, why do some purpose clauses appear to be infinitive? The answer is that we don't know. Some have speculated that there is a tendency (not a rule) that purpose clauses attached to nouns are infinitive and those attached to verbs are finite.
2:
"device in order that someone examines himself" jIjatlh vIneH. nuq vIqonnIS ? {nuD'eghmeH jan} {nuD'eghlu'meH jan} ghap ?
Same question, same answer. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11/11/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
that purpose clauses attached to nouns are infinitive mu'tlheghvam vIyaj; {-meH}'ed nouns boplaw'.
SuStel:
and those attached to verbs are finite. nuq 'oH "purpose clause attached to verb"'e' ?
Purpose clauses attached to sentences. Verb = sentence in TKD-speak. "The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to give examples to back up what is said here: borghel luHoHmeH puqpu’, ghojmeH tajmey lo’. The children used boys’ knives to kill the little bird. {HoH} is giving the purpose of the the verb {lo’}, while {ghoj} is giving the purpose of the noun {taj}. {HoH} gets a prefix because it forms a clause with a subject and object, like normal Klingon verbs. {ghoj} doesn’t get a prefix because it is as close to an infinitive as you’ll find in Klingon. It’s controversial whether or not you should call it infinitive because maybe something else is going on that we don’t understand about the grammar yet, but it is common practice to have verbs with {-meH} describe the purpose of a noun without reference to any subject or object. It appears that this is not merely a null prefix. It’s the absence of a prefix. There’s no other place in Klingon grammar where one would justifiably ponder the difference between a present null prefix vs. the absence of a prefix. It’s a unique exception in the language. Okrand has not described or explained this lack of reference to subjects or objects when a verb with {-meH} is applied to a noun. He has merely shown us examples in canon that can’t be reliably explained any other way. Again, this is not a rule. It’s just an observation about verbs with {-meH} in canon. A Purpose Clause, complete with subject and/or object can apply to a noun, and it’s possible that a maybe-infinitive verb-with-{-meH} could apply to a verb, but it is common for the maybe-infinitive construction to be applied to nouns, and less common to see it giving the purpose of a verb. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Nov 11, 2020, at 9:39 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/11/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
that purpose clauses attached to nouns are infinitive mu'tlheghvam vIyaj; {-meH}'ed nouns boplaw'.
SuStel:
and those attached to verbs are finite. nuq 'oH "purpose clause attached to verb"'e' ? Purpose clauses attached to sentences. Verb = sentence in TKD-speak. "The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing."
-- 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
On 11/11/2020 10:16 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Again, this is not a rule. It’s just an observation about verbs with {-meH} in canon. A Purpose Clause, complete with subject and/or object can apply to a noun, and it’s possible that a maybe-infinitive verb-with-{-meH} could apply to a verb, but it is common for the maybe-infinitive construction to be applied to nouns, and less common to see it giving the purpose of a verb.
A canonical counterexample: *qaSuchmeH 'eb*/opportunity for me to visit you./ http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Continuing to overthink this… it occurs to me that a student teacher, who teaches in order to learn… ghojmeH ghojmoH ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’. The student teacher teaches in order to learn. I’m tempted to try to make that “The student teacher teaches in order to learn how to teach”, but it seems like it would require applying a Purpose Clause to another Purpose Clause, which might be a bridge too far for Klingon grammar… unless… ghojmoHmeH mIw lughojmeH ghojmoH ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’pu’. Student teachers teach in order to learn a teaching method. And, of course: ghojmeH ghojmoHwI’pu’vaD ghojmoHmeH mIw lughojmeH ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’’a'. The professor teaches the teaching method to the student teachers. I may have blown a fuse there and gotten lost in the grammar somewhere, but I think I got that right... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Nov 11, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Just to give examples to back up what is said here:
borghel luHoHmeH puqpu’, ghojmeH tajmey lo’.
The children used boys’ knives to kill the little bird.
{HoH} is giving the purpose of the the verb {lo’}, while {ghoj} is giving the purpose of the noun {taj}.
{HoH} gets a prefix because it forms a clause with a subject and object, like normal Klingon verbs.
{ghoj} doesn’t get a prefix because it is as close to an infinitive as you’ll find in Klingon. It’s controversial whether or not you should call it infinitive because maybe something else is going on that we don’t understand about the grammar yet, but it is common practice to have verbs with {-meH} describe the purpose of a noun without reference to any subject or object. It appears that this is not merely a null prefix. It’s the absence of a prefix. There’s no other place in Klingon grammar where one would justifiably ponder the difference between a present null prefix vs. the absence of a prefix. It’s a unique exception in the language.
Okrand has not described or explained this lack of reference to subjects or objects when a verb with {-meH} is applied to a noun. He has merely shown us examples in canon that can’t be reliably explained any other way.
Again, this is not a rule. It’s just an observation about verbs with {-meH} in canon. A Purpose Clause, complete with subject and/or object can apply to a noun, and it’s possible that a maybe-infinitive verb-with-{-meH} could apply to a verb, but it is common for the maybe-infinitive construction to be applied to nouns, and less common to see it giving the purpose of a verb.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Nov 11, 2020, at 9:39 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 11/11/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
that purpose clauses attached to nouns are infinitive mu'tlheghvam vIyaj; {-meH}'ed nouns boplaw'.
SuStel:
and those attached to verbs are finite. nuq 'oH "purpose clause attached to verb"'e' ? Purpose clauses attached to sentences. Verb = sentence in TKD-speak. "The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is describing."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin