[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[Will Martin]

More on {-meH}…

I remember having great difficulty fully grasping the proper use of {-meH}. It took a long time to iron out the details (and a lot of patience on the part of those explaining it to me). There are a couple of tidbits I didn’t remember to include in the last response to this message:

Klingon technically lacks an infinitive form of the verb. The prefix implies a subject and perhaps a direct object, and all verbs have a prefix, since null is a prefix, and a true infinitive form would not have a subject or object. Meanwhile, the canon term {ghojmeH taj} has been discussed at great length and it’s been generally agreed that a {-meH} clause modifying a noun is as close to an infinitive form as you’ll see in Klingon.

Yes, you can say that {ghojmeH} has a null prefix, but it’s a bit of a stretch to insist that it means “an in-order-that-he/she/it/they-learn(s) knife”. The meaning is closer to “a to-learn knife” or “an in-order-to-learn knife”. We might even call it a “learning knife”, keeping in mind that we don’t suggest the knife itself is learning anything.

TKD doesn’t say anything about any difference between a {-meH} clause modifying a noun vs. modifying a verb, but consider what is involved in parsing each of these. If a {-meH} clause had its own time stamp, adverbials, locatives, explicit direct object or explicit subject when it precedes and modifies a noun, the resulting sentence would be quite a challenge to parse, especially if the noun being modified were the subject of another verb.

Simplicity becomes paramount when a verb with {-meH} modifies a noun that already has another role in the main clause. So, we tend to see single-word {-meH} clauses modifying nouns. You might see other suffixes on the {-meH} verb, as in {ja’chuqmeH rojHom}, but you won’t typically see a prefix and you can count on not having any nouns or chuvmey grammatically connected to the {-meH} verb.

{-meH} clauses modifying verbs are another matter entirely, since we are told in TKD that the {-meH} clause precedes the entire main clause. With the possible exception of a noun ambiguously placed as subject of the {-meH} clause and/or object of the main clause, it becomes pretty simple to figure out which words belong to which clause, so there is less need to Keep It Simple when it comes to forming the dependent {-meH} clause modifying the main clause.

I’d like to acknowledge SuStel on a related topic. When I was thrashing about, trying to learn about {-meH} and other Type 9-suffixed dependent clauses, I overgeneralized and suggested that all Type 9 dependent clauses should precede the main clause. SuStel pointed out my egregious error. As a matter of style, I still prefer dependent clauses to precede main clauses simply because I find this easier to parse and more consistent with the Klingon tendency to put all the descriptive environment for a main verb first, and finish with the main verb like a punch line to a joke, resolving all that comes before it, but this suggestion is completely wrong in terms of being any kind of actual rule in the language. TKD explicitly shows many examples of several other Type 9 suffix based clauses placed before or after the main clause. Okrand makes it clear that it doesn’t matter whether it precedes or follows the main clause.

The Addendum, unfortunately, makes no statement one way or the other on placement of the newer Type 9 based clause described there. The only Type 9 based clause that we are told must precede the main clause is {-meH}.

While contemplating this, it occurs to me that I don’t remember any examples of Type 9 based clauses that have their own Type 9 based clause… a dependent clause depending on another dependent clause. There don’t seem to be any explicit rules against it, though I can’t imagine that any examples of such wouldn’t be butt-ugly monsters.

For that matter, I don’t remember seeing any main clauses with multiple Type 9 based dependent clauses. Again, I suspect the result would be a mess.

Klingon doesn’t allow more than one suffix of a single Type on a noun or a verb. Essentially, there is a slot for each Type available for each noun and verb, and one and only one suffix of that type can fit in that slot.

Is there a similar slot for dependent clauses? Are we limited to one? We’ve been shown that there is no single slot for adverbials; we can have more than one. If we are allowed to use multiple Type 9 dependent clauses, would they require a conjunction between them? If we are required to use a conjunction, would that still be the case if one clause preceded the main clause and the other followed it?

There are many unanswered questions about Klingon grammar remaining to us, after all these years, though I suggest that even if we are allowed these things, Okrand has given us the advice that Klingons prefer to split complex ideas into multiple, simpler sentences, rather than pile too much into one. This principle probably explains why we don’t have examples of multiple Type 9 dependent clauses connected to other Type 9 dependent clauses, or have examples of multiple Type 9 dependent clauses pointing to the same main clause.

jajlIj yItIv.

poH jorwI’ vIchu’pu'’a’?

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:57 AM, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151109/420a8ef5/attachment-0001.html>