[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[SuStel]

On 11/9/2015 5:57 AM, qunnoQ HoD wrote:
>
> why do we say {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'} instead of {rojHom
> ja'chuqmeH neH jagh la'} ?

The {-chuq} suffix means that the subject and object of the verb are the 
same; therefore the thing discussed can't be the object.

> 2. jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH They are searching for the enemy in order
> to kill him/her.
>
> could we say {jagh luHoHtaHmeH jagh lunejtaH} meaning <<they are
> searching for the enemy,for the purpose of killing him>> ?

It means something different. The original means they are continuously 
searching in order to kill; yours means they are searching in order to 
continuously kill.

> 3. the definition of a purpose clause is verb plus {-meH},or verb plus
> {-meH} plus noun,or noun plus verb plus {-meH} ?

It can be any of those. We've seen {-meH} verbs in a sort of infinitive 
state, where they have no subject (or object), but they still modify a 
head noun. For instance, {ghojmeH taj} "child's knife" (literally "knife 
for learning); {taj} is not the subject of {ghojmeH} because the knife 
does not learn.

On the other hand, the sentence you quoted from TKD is an example of a 
{-meH} clause with both a subject and an object.

> HQ 7.3, p.6, Sept. 1998 (as i read in boQwI') would certainly come in
> handy right now.. Just to think that there is a HolQeD article
> explaining all this -an article I cannot have- makes feel like a dog
> whose food is placed just where its leash ends !

The article isn't about this question; it's about sentences like {QIpmeH 
Qatlh'a'} "difficult to hit?" which seem not to make sense (it seems to 
mean something like "is it being difficult so that I hit it?"). The 
author's (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv) solution is to reform the sentence along 
the lines of {Qatlh'a' QIpmeH Qu'} "is the task of hitting difficult?"

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