[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Qov]

At 12:39 '?????' 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>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.

I never noticed that "to hit" could be interpreted here as "in order 
to hit." It's certainly a quick path to condemning the sentence.

I see it as I kind of a variation on "In order to hit it, will we 
have to accomplish a difficult task?"

So {wIqIpmeH Qu' Qatlh wIta'nIS'a'?}

{Qu' Qatlh wIta'nIS'a'} means pretty much the same thing as {Qatlh'a' 
Qu' wIta'nISbogh}, assuming that its a given that there is indeed a 
Qu', and there is, wIqIpmeH is established as that Qu' in the first clause.

Would everyone agree that {wIqIpmeH Qatlh'a' Qu' wIta'nISbogh?} was a 
well formed sentence?

Can we slide from there to say that {Qatlh'a' Qu' wIta'nISbogh} is 
pretty much equivalent to {Qatlh'a' Qu'maj}?  If we have to do a duty 
it's our duty, qar'a'?

And then it's an easy step to omit the possessive, because who else 
is going to own the task that we hit it? And likewise the wIqIp or 
vIqIp or whatever it was loses its prefix to clipping. Is there a 
step there that's wrong? When smart people whom I respect reject 
something, I pay attention, but I don't reject this canon the way some do.

- Qov