[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[Felix Malmenbeck]

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

I think everybody would agree that it's a well-formed sentence, but I think that many (myself being an exception) would contest that it means what you want it to mean, since being difficult does not contribute to accomplishing the purpose (except in some very specific scenarios, such as when you make it difficult in order to make it appealing ... but that's not the idea here, I take it).

My argument is - more or less - that it's not crazy to think that this does work. [I also think that on top of not being crazy, it may also be "correct". I'm less certain about that, though.]

A day can be good for dying.
Fake ale can be preferable for drinking.
A mission can be difficult for achieving.

ghItlhta' SuStel:
> 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?

I'd assume it'd be something like:
[DoS/nejwI'] wIqIpmeH [maH] Qatlh'a' [ngoQ/Qu'/ta']

As such, it's basically a special case of the second [speculative] type of -meH clause I described:

> 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.

ghItlhta' ghunchu'wI':
> Your sentences with {DuH} and {qIt}
> seem like complete gibberish to me, and I'm not sure what you intend
> them to mean.

That's VERY interesting to hear, since they come extremely naturally to me.

Assuming you're talking about these two:

QI'tu'Daq maHlaw'taH. maHeghpu' qIt'a'?
wej pa' pawmeH vay' DuH'a'?

You're saying you don't understand what I'm trying to say? As in, not just that you think I've chosen a bad way to express it, but as in "It's incompehensible"?
In that case, that does force me to look in this in a new light, since I've more or less assumed those sentences would be easy to understand even for somebody who didn't accept my view on -meH.

________________________________________
From: David Trimboli [david at trimboli.name]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 21:41
To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

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/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol