[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Terrence Donnelly]

You are forgetting the canon {nargh vISuchmeH 'eb}. I'd say that's the basic answer to your objection about those forms not having subjects.

--- On Sun, 4/29/12, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:
...
> Last and probably least, I think it'd be quite useful to be
> able to say such things. I can see it leading to some
> abiguous sentences (such as {paq vIlaDmeH ngeD} - Is the
> book easy for me to read, or is the book easy so that I'll
> bother reading it?), but it'd also give us some new ways to
> use verbs where we'd really like to have sentences as
> subjects, such as {Qatlh}, {ngeD}, {DuH} and {qIt}.

That would be {ngeD laDmeH Qu'}. I don't think we ever settled on what noun would serve as the "dummy" subject in these sentences, and there are probably lots of choices, depending on the context.

{DuH'a' verengan muSHa'meH tlhIngan wanI'?} (I know {muSHa'} doesn't mean "to love", I just needed a verb for {-meH} to illustrate the point.)

-- ter'eS