tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 09 06:57:16 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Another answer from HolQeD

I know this is old, but I've been chewing on it a while and 
needed to comment. 

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:29:50 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I was reading through the latest HolQeD over the 
> weekend...
> Adding -moH to an intransitive is well-ordered and 
> neat...
> The subject of the -moHless sentence becomes the
> object of the -moHified one.  No problems.

As I see it, the Klingon subject of a -moHified verb 
becomes the subject of causation, while the object of the 
Klingon -moHified verb becomes the subject of the action of 
the root verb. 

> But what if you have a sentence that already has an object, and then add
> - -moH to it?  ...
> But one answer that was discussed (and
> which I liked) seems to have been accepted as canon now.  Look at HolQeD
> 5:2, p. 14.  A Skybox card is quoted:
> 
> qorDu'Daj tuq 'oS Ha'quj'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv.  tuQtaHvIS Hem.  ghaHvaD quHDaj
> qawmoH.
> 
> The sash that Worf wears is a symbol of his family's house.  He wears it
> proudly as a reminder of his heritage.

I find this very confusing without some sort of explanation 
from Okrand. Why? Okay, we are dealing with three nouns 
here. One is the subject of causation. Another is the 
subject of the action of the root verb. The third is the 
direct object of the action of the main verb. In this case, 
the sash is the subject of causation, Worf is the subject 
of the action of the verb and his heritage is the direct 
object of the action of the main verb. The sash causes Worf 
to remember his heritage.

ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.
 
Worf is represented in this sentence by {ghaHvaD}, the 
indirect object of the -moHified verb {qaw}. So the subject 
of the root verb becomes the indirect object of the 
-moHified verb. Interesting, but acceptable. {quHDaj} is 
the direct object of the action of the root verb, but here 
it remains in the object position, unlike any example of 
{-moH} we've seen to date. This is strange.

We also must imagine that the sash has been absorbed into 
the Subject position, since that is the only place left in 
Klingon grammar to put such a noun. Spelled out, that would 
be: ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH 'oH. 

This implies that if the sash merely caused him to look 
good, we could state that as:

ghaHvaD 'IHchoHmoH 'oH.

That becomes the equivalent of:

ghaH 'IHchoHmoH 'oH.

Can this be useful for disambiguating the confusing example 
we are given?

HeghqangmoHlu'pu' = It made him/her willing to die. 

This could also be stated as:

ghaHvaD HeghqangmoHpu' 'oH.

Or, if we stick to the indefinite subject:

ghaHvaD HeghqangmoHlu'pu'.

So, what we are saying is that the subject of the root verb 
can be expressed either as a direct or indirect object, or 
as Krankor liked to say, as object, with Klingon not 
differentiating between direct or indirect. It only has to 
be stated as indirect object if you have to make room for a 
direct object of the action of the main verb. 

The other meaning many of us would have assumed for the 
original example would be better stated as:

Hegh ghaH 'e' qaSqangmoH 'oH.

To give THIS the indefinite subject, it gets stranger:

Hegh ghaH net qaSqangmoH.

Still, I suppose this doesn't get TOO strange. Still, 
before these examples become acceptable, I really wish 
Okrand would offer a little clarity.

Meanwhile, I'm much more drawn to:

ghaH HoHqanglu'pu'.

Though I guess that doesn't describe willingness to hire an 
assasin, though ascribing that to a being incapable of 
using language seems odd...

> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level