[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[David Trimboli]

On 5/1/2012 2:58 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>
>> But the "to hit" in the English is *not* a purpose clause. The
>> full sentence is either "Is the target difficult to hit?" or "Is it
>> difficult to hit the target?" In neither case does the "to hit"
>> mean "in order to hit." (*"Is the target difficult in order to
>> hit?" *"Is it difficult in order to hit the target?") Interpreting
>> it this way, you're just trying to rationalize away the fact that
>> there is no purpose expressed in this sentence
>
> 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?

There is a purpose in the situation being described, but it is not 
expressed in the sentence. There is no dependency in the sentence on 
being difficult, which is what a purpose clause does.

"The purpose clause always precedes the noun or verb whose purpose it is 
describing." (TKD 64)

The purpose clause describes the purpose of the noun or verb to which it 
is attached. In the example sentence, {qIpmeH} "in order to hit" can 
*only* be describing the purpose of {Qatlh'a'} "is it difficult?"

Let's drop the question for a moment. *{qIpmeH Qatlh} "it is difficult 
to hit." This means, literally, "it has the quality of being difficult 
so that it can hit." (Let's also ignore the seemingly wrong subject and 
object combination... "so that it can hit"?)

But "it" (the target?) does not have the quality of being difficult so 
that it can hit. During the situation in question, the probe was just 
floating out in space. There was no intention there, no purpose; no one 
did anything to make anything difficult.

What the Klingon question *should* be asking is, "Is the hitting 
difficult?" Most simply, that would be something like {Qatlh'a' 
qIpghach}, though one would not actually say it like that. This is where 
twisty constructions like {qIpmeH 'eb} "opportunity for hitting" and the 
like start appearing.

>> If this explanation and the sheer obvious English bias of the
>> translations

(Oh, *and* the fact that it doesn't match the grammar in TKD.)

> don't convince you, what would?
>
> 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").

I don't undestand what you mean here. I think there are too many 
negatives for me to follow.

If we go by the actual sentiment, rather than what is spoken, the 
"hitting" is what is difficult, not the purpose of being difficult. If 
anyone has a purpose in the scene, it is Captain Klaa, whose purpose is 
to hit the target.

qIpmeH baHta'
he fired to hit the target

If {Qatlh} were a noun meaning "difficulty," I would accept {qIpmeH 
Qatlh} as "hitting difficulty." But then it couldn't be a question.

Now, I'd also be interested if you could try to explicitly identify the 
subject and object (if any) of {qIpmeH}, and the subject of {Qatlh'a'}. 
Is *what* difficult?

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/