tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 19:04:02 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Qapbe' DujwIj
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:04:00 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:56:51 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In English, you can teach a person AND/OR teach a subject. However,
> {ghojmoH} is not the same as "teach." {ghojmoH} means "teach (a person)."
> That's not how it's defined for us, but that's what the construction
> {ghoj} + {-moH} means. "Cause to learn."
>
> It is quite clear to me that {mughojmoH Qanqor} is the correct way to say
> "Krankor teaches me."
>
> SuStel
Well said. Ummm. It seems like I have given a bad explanation
for why I did something right, assuming that {ghoj} was intended
to be used intransitively. Meanwhile, if it was supposed to be
used transitively, we get back to Okrand's unusual example and
get:
jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH Qanqor.
Possibly with indirect object prefix shortcut, this becomes:
tlhIngan Hol mughojmoH Qanqor.
If the indirect object were third person, this would not be an
option.
Meanwhile, if there is no explicit direct object (as was the
case in my original sentence), do we use the model of the way
Okrand presents intransitive verbs, or do we use the model he
presents for transitive verbs?
Arguably, if we can use the prefix shortcut in this particular
case, it doesn't matter because they both yield what I wrote.
But if you can't use the prefix shortcut without an explicit
object AND you can't treat a potentially transitive verb as if
it were intransitive, then peHruS would be right.
Meanwhile, Okrand has sanctioned (albeit hesitantly)
<<qajatlh>>, which uses the prefix shortcut with no explicit
direct object, and he also provided us with {HIQoymoH!} which is
definitely a potentially transitive root verb either being used
intransitively or having the prefix shortcut applied to the
transitive model.
It's a mess. I think what I wrote is right but I almost wish it
wasn't. I definitely wish Okrand would come out and clarify
this, but I'm not holding my breath.
charghwI' 'utlh
> jatlh peHruS:
> I also argued that I do not think {mughojmoH Qanqor} works. But, no one
> has
> told me why he thinks it does work. My opinion is that: we teach a
> subject,
> not a person. Obviously, the prefix {mu-} indicates a person.
>
> I would have said: {jIHvaD ghojmoH Qanqor}.
>
> Still open to comments and opinions.