[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

Sun Apr 29 20:56:48 PDT 2012

Unfortunately, Okrand has (gasp!) written some pretty ugly canon sentences.

In general, the way to write things so that they can be more clearly understood is to use the {-meH} affixed verb applied to a noun and not to a verb when you don't really mean that the purpose of the second verb's action is to do the first verb's action. This option was something many of us (including me) didn't think of back in the early days. Having that option really helps.

So, while Okrand did write {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?}, it might have been somewhat clearer to have said {QatlhmeH DoS 'oH'a'?}. It would have even worked as {Qatlh DoS 'oH'a'?}, but that would not carry the sense that being difficult is the whole point of it being a target.

As for "I was going to visit you, but it was late," there are better options. {tlhoy jIpaSmo' qaSuchbe'.} Klingon doesn't have an irrealis or subjunctive. If you mean that something would have happened, except that X prevented it, then you need to say that the thing didn't happen because of X.

Besides, it's more direct that way.

In general, I think most people write better Klingon sentences if they begin with an expression that they wish to make and then survey the grammatical tools available in the language to find the best construction, instead of starting with a grammatical construction and searching for the full range of expressions that can be forced through it.

There are many posts to this list over the years that ask some variation on the question: "We all agree that we can say X with grammatical tool Y, but can we also say Z with it?" The answer is usually some variation on, "No."

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com

On Apr 29, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:

> So, yesterday I started up a conversation on the tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu' Facebook group regarding sentences with purpose clauses, and I figured I'd summarize it here so we can continue it:
> 
> I've noticed that there are several examples in canon where the main clause M of sentences like {P-meH M} does not in fact seem to be saying what is done to accomplish P, but rather to say something indirect about what is done; rather than stating the means to an end, it describes some aspect of those means.
> 
> For example:
> 
> {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'.} - Marc Okrand was asked if this could mean something like "I was going to visit you, but was too late", but Marc describes replies thusly:
> "Perhaps, then, a better English rendition of the Klingon sentence is "In order for me to visit you, I'll be very late."   This suggests that the visit did or will take place (though later, perhaps, than desired), which is not the intended meaning."
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1998-01-18b-news.txt&get=source
> 
> One could come up with situations where being late would be beneficial to the act of visiting somebody (for instance, you could be late to work because you want to visit a friend on the way), but that's clearly not the case here: {jIpaSqu'} states something about how the goal is accomplished, but it is not itself the means to an end.
> 
> Another example is:
> 
> {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} ("Difficult to hit?") - Said by Klaa in Star Trek V, wondering if the chosen target will be difficult to hit.
> Now, unless the designers of the Pioneer 10 made it difficult to hit because they knew that'd make it an irresistible target for Klingons, {Qatlh} clearly isn't the means to an end, though it does say something of the process towards accomplishing that end.
> http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2008/October/msg00037.html
> 
> It was pointed out in the Facebook conversation that the sentence {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} is clipped. However, I'm not certain that the sentence which appears in the closed captions (wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a') is, and either way, it's difficult for me to see what it could be clipped from that would invalidate my interpretation.
> 
> Last and least obvious, I'd argue that {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam} may be an example of this:
> Is the statement here really that the day's goodness is causing death (QaQmo' jajvam ghaytan Heghlu'), or is it something more akin to {DaHjaj jIHeghchugh HeghwIj wanI' QaQmoH jajvam.}? That is, is the day's goodness the means to an end, or is it an aspect of those means?
> 
> Counter-example:
> By my logic, you might expect to see modal statements like {mIl'oD SuDqu' tu'lu'meH qItbe'.} ("It's impossible that there are green sabre-bears.") or {ngebmeH So'QateS DuH} ("It's possible that Sokrates did not exist.").
> However, one piece of canon may in fact rule out such a possibility:
> 
> Back in 1996, somebody asked Marc Okrand how to say "Do you think it's possible for a Klingon to feel love for a Ferengi?"
> One klingonist suggested {verenganvaD bang HotmeH tlhIngan qIt 'e' DaQub'a'?}
> As Marc points out, there are many problems with that sentence, but one of them is less obvious than the others:
> 
> "Finally, you use the word qIt to mean "it's possible."  qIt is a verb meaning "be possible."  In your sentence, however, it's used in an odd way.  As you know, in Klingon, objects precede the verb and subjects follow.  Since qIt is a verb, what precedes it should be the object (here, "a Klingon feels love for a Ferengi," regardless of how you say that); what follows should be the subject.  But nothing follows. ('e' DaQub'a' is something else, and 'e' is the object of DaQub'a'.)  It's possible that the subject of qIt is "it" (presumably 'oH) and that the pronoun is just not uttered (not impossible); but what is "it"?  It has to refer to something, but, in this case, it refers to nothing, making the entire construct suspect.  I'd suggest recasting the sentence by making use of the verb suffix -laH 'can, able,' so it would mean something like "...a Klingon is able to feel love for a Ferengi."  Of course, until we know how to say "feel love" we don't know what to attach the -laH to."
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1996-12-12b-news.txt&get=source
> 
> So, here we'd appear to have the statement that {qIt} CAN'T be used in that way, which casts some doubt on all expressions of the type that I've suggested.
> 
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> So, what do y'all think?
> 
> I personally don't think it's all that far-fetched that the M in {P-meH M} could be a modal aspect or the like of accomplishing a goal (possibility, difficulty, necessity, etc.) rather than the method used to reach that goal, even if it's only the latter that's been expressly advocated.
> I'd also argue that there is some canonical basis for thinking that this is possible, at least in some contexts.
> 
> 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}.
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol