[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> 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.

I agree with you that there's any number of nouns that would fit in ({ngoQ}, {Qu'} and {ta'} could all work for {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'}, {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'} has an elided {jIH} as its subject, and {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} has {jajvam}), but it's curious that Marc Okrand objected to {HotmeH qIt} for the stated reason.

Not sure I agree that {vISuchmeH 'eb} is a good example of this, though. In this case, {'eb} is indeed the means to an end (which is what we'd expect from the explanation of -meH in TKD), whereas in the case of {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'} (a sentence many of us would not expect to see based on TKD), the subject of {Qatlh'a'} would be the end itself.

> 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.

...but {paq vIlaDmeH ngeD} follows almost exactly the same pattern as the canonical {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'}:
The purpose clause has a subject and an object, and the main clause - which follows the purpose clause - refers to the ease/difficulty of accomplishing the goal, and the subject of the main clause appears to be the goal itself.
Why shouldn't it be correct?

An even more similar sentence would be {wIlaDmeH ngeD'a'}:
Does this mean "Is it easy for us to read?", or does it mean "Is it easy so that we'll bother reading it?"?

> {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.)

How about {tlhIngan bang ghaHmeH verengan'e' DuH'a'?}?