[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Felix Malmenbeck]

ghItlhta' SuStel:
> They exemplify the structure of Okrand thinking in English and not
> considering carefully enough what the sentence actually means. Is that
> not obvious?

That's certainly a possibility worth considering. I really think that whether or not you think it's obvious is dependent on whether or not you think the sentences are too far off-base to be examples of proper Klingon, and I'm personally not convinced; they're not what I would've written or expected based on TKD and other canonical examples, but they are still very directly tied to a purpose.

ghItlhta' ghunchu'wI':
> I think I can see where you're coming from. In your proposed examples,
> {-meH} is being used to indicate not method, but manner. It answers how
> instead of why. That interpretation does fit the {wIqIpmeH} canon better
> than TKD's description of purpose clauses. "Is it difficult in a we-hit-it kind
> of way?"

Aye, I think that's a good summary of what I'm thinking. It still answers a sort of question about how something is done, but instead of "By what means?", it's "By what sort of means?"

> I still think that it's a bad idea to expand the interpretation of purpose
> clauses that way. While it does fully encompass the troubling canon
> phrase, it does so in a way that also embraces many opportunities
> for vagueness and ambiguity. It adds potential unintended
> interpretations to practically every use of {-meH}, while the only
> benefit I can see is that it makes it easier to translate an English
> "sentence as subject" phrasing.
>
> I choose clarity of expression over ease of translation.
>
> (The preceding sentence should not be construed as an insult,
> accusation, or personal attack -- it's just a concise way to express my
> personal opinion.)

qay'be'; chotIchpu'be' :)

The risk of multiplying ambiguity until -meH becomes useless is a very big concern for me, too. However, I don't think it would be all that difficult to overcome. After all, with the exception of {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'}, I think most of find the canonical examples quite easy to understand.

If I were to wake up one day and discover that I had become Marc Okrand, and I were to attempt an expansion of the -meH concept, I think it'd be something like this:

{P-meH M}

1) If M describes an action rather than a state of being), P is the motivation/purpose of that action.
Examples:
* cho'meH toy'wI''a', voDleH chotta'.
* DujvamDaq bIratlhmeH bIlo'laH'eghnISmoH!

2) M can also refer to a state of being, for example expressing utility (voDleH HoHlu'meH lI'qu' taj jej) or desirability (Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam). These qualities are not inherently purpose-driven (driving wind turbines is not the purpose of wind, but wind is very useful for this purpose), so rather, they reflect how these qualities contribute to the achievement of P.
Examples:
* chepmeH DIvI', 'ut roj.
* SachmeH wo', lo'laH SuvwI'pu' quv.

[I'm uncertain if {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'} would be an example of this.]

3) Probably the most controversial:
As with 2), M refers to a state of being. Importantly, the subject (whether made explicit or not) refers to the purpose; it could be a word such as ngoQ, ta', ghu', wanI' or Qu'.
If it is clear from context that the subject really is this goal (as I'd argue is the case with {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'}), then M expressed something about the achievement of P.
[One can also use qualifiers to make clear that the goal/achievement/situation/event is NOT the one marked by P. For example, one can call it {latlh ngoQ} or use a genitive suffix.]
I'm not sure which qualities this would include, but some possible candidates are:

* Possibility - DuH, qIt
 - QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
* Difficulty - Qatlh, ngeD
 - wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a'?
* Desirability - QaQ, qaq, qab, nIv, QIv, Do', Do'Ha'...
 - jatlhlu'meH QaQ, 'ach tamlu'meH qaq.
* Necessity/Importance - 'ut, potlh, ram
 - HeghmeH ghaH potlhqu'law'.

Not saying it would be exactly these ones, or that these cannot be expressed in other ways, but that's how I imagine it.

1) is the one that I think is strictly advocated by TKD.
2) does not strike me as though it matches TKD's description, but I think most would be okay with it.
3), as mentioned, I know is highly controversial, but I personally think it'd be useful (especially possibility and difficulty), to the degree that it outweighs the added ambiguity.