[Tlhingan-hol] Concerning the purpose clauses

[Elizabeth Lawrence]

ja'chuqmeH - purpose clause (in order to speak to each other)
rojHom - noun (truce)
neH - verb (wants)
jagh la' - noun phrase (the enemy commander)

jagh luHoHmeH - purpose clause (in order for them to kill the enemy)
jagh - noun (the enemy)
lunejtaH - verb (they are searching for him)

Bear in mind that because of the prefixes and suffixes, the verb may
contain information that would take several additional words in English.
Also, I think that part of what may be confusing you is that purpose
clauses also contain verbs; any verb with a type 9 suffix cannot be the
main verb of a sentence.

neH is a simple verb - he/she/it/they wants him/her/it/them.  It has no
written prefix on it, so we know the subject and object are both third
person.

lunejtaH has both a written prefix and a written suffix.  lu- means that
the subject is them (third person plural) and the object is him/her/it
(third person singular.  nej is the verb, it means to search for, and -taH
is the suffix meaning continuous.  Thus lunejtaH translates as: They are
searching for him/her/it.

Spend some time studying the verb prefixes; they will help you immensely to
understand sentences and will also help you to quickly identify which word
is the verb even if you don't know its meaning.

be''etlh

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:49 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151109/8d85c940/attachment.html>