[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:
>
> There's a purpose in the Klingon sentence, though: The purpose is hitting it. The question is: How hard will that purpose be to achieve?

I think your understanding of a {-meH}-marked "purpose clause" is the
main issue here. The purpose clause comes before whatever it is the
purpose of. TKD section 6.2.4:

"If an action is being done in order to accomplish something,
or for the purpose of accomplishing something, the verb
describing what is to be accomplished ends with the Type 9
suffix {-meH,} which may be translated <for, for the purpose of,
in order to.> The purpose clause always precedes the noun or
verb whose purpose it is describing."

In the relevant sentence, the purpose clause is {wIqIpmeH} "in order
that we hit it." The main verb of the sentence, {Qatlh'a'} "is it
difficult?" is supposed to be there to effect the goal, not to
describe it. While the intended meaning can be derived from this
example, it's very poorly worded. I discourage anyone from using it as
a pattern to emulate.

> To be convinced this doesn't work, I'd need either:
>
> a) …to be convinced that it's absurd for the main clause to be a description of some quality of the means ("it's difficult"), rather than a direct statement of those means ("aiming and shooting").
> or
> b) ...canonical confirmation that it doesn't work. [Currently, the statement about HotmeH qIt is a good candidate for this; I'm not sure.]

I don't know how to convince you of a) if you don't think you have at
least some of it backwards. The main clause isn't supposed to be
describing the purpose. It's the other way around.

The only part of your argument that I find intriguing is a potential
distinction between verbs of action and verbs of quality. If it
weren't for the obvious (yes, it is indeed obvious to me as well)
mistranslation of the English infinitive "to hit" as if it were a goal
"in order to hit", I'd be more inclined to pursue the possibility that
canon supports your proposal. As it is, however, I don't see a clear
reason to want it to be that way. Your sentences with {DuH} and {qIt}
seem like complete gibberish to me, and I'm not sure what you intend
them to mean.

-- ghunchu'wI'