[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[qunnoQ HoD]

thank you all very much,for taking the time to reply !

> Then you put a direct object on a verb that is translated as "confer"
though its literal meaning is "talk to each other", and we have neither the
grammar rule nor canon example to explain how it could connect a direct
object to it
> since "each other" implies that the "other" is the direct object of
"speak". Basically, your suggestion is ungrammatical.

yes you're right,I understand now.

> You are implying that the act of killing is continuous. Are you
suggesting that they intend a remarkably slow, apparently endless death?
> 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.
> that would be "for the purpose of going on killing him". Of the process
of killing him is the exercise rather than him being dead, then yeah, sure.
But that's not normally what people want to say.

I understand this too. thanks.

..but I still can't understand something,which I think is the reason why
I'm so confused with the purpose clauses. lets read together this sentence
:

"..the purpose clause must precede the noun or verb it is describing.."

My difficulty is to figure out which actually is the noun or verb that is
being described. In the sentence {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'}  <<The
enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer.>> which is this noun
or verb ?
the {rojHom},the {jagh la'} or the {neH} ?
Similarly I wonder : In the sentence {jagh luHoHmeH jagh lunejtaH} <<they
are searching for the enemy in order to kill him/her>>, which is the noun
or verb that the relative clause must precede ? the {jagh} or the
{lunejtaH} ?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

> 1. Because ja'chuq takes no object, and a -meH clause precedes the main
> clause.
>
> {ja'chuqmeH} = in order to confer
> {rojHom neH jagh la'} = the enemy commander wants a truce (OVS)
>
> If the -meH verb had a subject and object, its OVS would precede the main
> clause OVS.
>
> 2. that would be "for the purpose of going on killing him". Of the process
> of killing him is the exercise rather than him being dead, then yeah, sure.
> But that's not normally what people want to say.
>
> 3. A purpose clause is like an entire normal sentence, except with -meH on
> the verb.
>
> DaHjaj yaHwIjDaq jIpaSbe'meH jabbI'IDvam vIghang.
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 2015, at 2:57, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was reading the purpose clauses and the following questions came
> up,making me feel like a bird of prey lost in a nebula..
> >
> > 1. lets consider the following example :
> >
> > ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'  The enemy commander wishes a truce (in
> order) to confer.
> >
> > why do we say {ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jagh la'} instead of {rojHom
> ja'chuqmeH neH jagh la'} ?
> >
> > 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>> ?
> >
> > 3. the definition of a purpose clause is verb plus {-meH},or verb plus
> {-meH} plus noun,or noun plus verb plus {-meH} ?
> >
> > 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 !
> >
> > cpt qunnoQ
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151109/700180c0/attachment.html>