[Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses

[David Trimboli]

On 5/1/2012 10:00 PM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
>
> ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
>> 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"?)
>
> That's a straw man. The translation could just as easily be "X has the
> quality of being difficult so that Y can hit X"; the null pronominal prefix
> on {qIp} allows for either interpretation.

Which is why I said to ignore it. It's not relevant to the -meH problem.

> taH:
>> 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?
>
> Here, I think we're relying overly much on the English gloss of {Qatlh} as
> "be difficult". {Qatlh} also means "be complex":
>
> motlh ray' luSamlaHmeH De' Qatlh cha' tlhIngan Duj jIH'a'
> "the main viewer on a Klingon ship is usually overlaid with a complex target
> acquisition grid"
> (SP3)
>
> which shows that an object can also be {Qatlh}. I suggest that "challenging"
> is an appropriate gloss in the example of {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'}.

I don't see how thinking of a different English word changes anything. 
"Difficult," "complex," "challenging," the -meH problem is the same.

> And I hate to delve into an Earth language for a parallel, but in French one
> can also use a purpose clause ("pour" + infinitive) in such cases:
>
> il va pour savoir - he goes in order to find out (or know)
> c'est difficile pour savoir - it is difficult to know

This looks like exactly the same construction as the English: 
adjective+particle+infinitive. It's not always a purpose clause. It's 
not one in your second sentence.

> In the clipped {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} I interpret it thus: the subject of {qIp}
> is the person doing the hitting, the object of {qIp} is the thing being hit,
> and the subject of {Qatlh} is also the thing being hit.

Doesn't matter. As I said originally, I was ignoring that part. Whether 
you try {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} or {DoS vIqIpmeH Qatlh'a' DoS}, the problem is 
the same: <X> is not really being <quality> for the purpose of <Y> doing 
<action> to <X>.

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