tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 07 12:30:08 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: The years sometimes teach us what the days never know.
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:26:51 -0400
In a message dated 8/3/2003 4:17:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
> You don't add /-moH/ to verbs that already have subjects and objects. You
> add /-moH/ to a verb, and then give it subjects and objects that are
> appropriate.
>
I was referring to the verb pattern that underlies the written verb
phrase, and how the pattern is transformed by the addition of {-moH},
how we determine which subjects and objects are appropriate.
> What makes you assume that Klingon has to have any kind of ditransitivity?
> Aside from one unexplained example with grammar that otherwise contradicts
> the grammar of TKD?
>
Who said anything about ditransitivity? {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH}: I see
a noun plus {-vaD), a noun object, and an implied subject. Where's the
ditransitivity?
[...]
> Baloney and sophistry. TKD makes it very clear what the /-moH/ suffix does:
> it makes the subject cause the object to do verb. The heritage example
Actually, it doesn't; see your own quote below.
> breaks that grammar. Some people want to claim that it's a totally new
> grammar. I, for one, thnk the more reasonable explanation is that it's an
> error.
>
I, for one, think it clears up a vague point from TKD without violating
any existing grammar.
> Either way, my ultimate point is NOT that you're wrong and I'm right. My
> point is that my way of saying these things is definitely right, literally
> by the book, and yours isn't.
My point is that part of your solution is not supported by canon, but is
just your opinion, and therefore can't be "definitely right".
>
> yaS vIghojmoH. tlhIngan Hol ghoj.
> I teach the officer Klingon.
> 100% according to the rules. The multiple-sentences-to-express-a-concept
> bit is supported by a whole lot of canon (e.g., /QaghmeylIj tIchID; yIyoH/
> "Have the courage to admit your mistakes"), and doesn't violate any rule or
> observed behavior. This works.
>
> *yaSvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH.
> The ONLY thing this has going for it is that it matches the grammar of the
> Skybox card with the heritage sentence. Otherwise it violates the
> explanation of /-moH/ in TKD, and does not have any other basis in canon.
>
Whereas {yaS vIghojmoH} has no canon support whatsoever, and does not actually
agree with the explanation of {-moH} in TKD.
[...]
>
> TKD p. 86:
> ghoj learn (v)
>
> TKD p. 38:
> -moH cause
> Adding this suffix to a verb indicates that the subject is causing a change
> of condition or causing a new condition to come into existence.
>
This is canon, and quoted accurately.
> Thus:
> /ghojmoH/ means "subject causes object to learn."
>
This is an unwarranted assumption and does not follow from the quote. The
TKD description of {-moH} does not actually say it "makes the subject cause
_the object_ to do verb". It only states that the subject causes a change.
The examples cited in TKD are {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH}, which comes from the
intransitive verb {chen} and so is irrelevant, and {HIQoymoH}, glossed as
"let me hear (something)". Following the usual notation Okrand uses in
the rest of the book, this would imply that {QoymoH} has as its object
the thing heard, which (by a funny coincidence), also happens to be the
object of {Qoy}! Okrand also glosses it as "cause me to hear (something)".
This is evidently where the trouble arises. Evidently, some have come
to the conclusion that, since the object of the verb "cause" in the
English sentence is "me", that it must be the object of {QoymoH}, too.
But this contradicts the gloss, which still contains the word "(something)".
In other words {QoymoH} does have an object, but it is not the person
being compelled to act. The verb prefix in {HIQoymoH} is evidently an
example of the prefix trick, and not an indication of the actual object.
The big question has always been, since verbs + {-moH} are not "new"
words but just the original verb plus suffix, what do the natural
subject and object of the unsuffixed verb tell us about the verb
plus suffix, especially, what role, if any, in the verb phrase
is played by the noun that is the subject of the unsuffixed verb
and is the one compelled to act in the suffixed form? In the
absence of canon, there was no way to resolve this.
Then along came {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH}, and I really thought
we had our answer. Here we had a transitive verb plus {-moH},
with an object and with a role for the noun compelled to
act, that didn't violate any existing grammar. The object
of {qawmoH} was the same as one would expect for {qaw},
agreeing with TKD. The use of {-vaD} to mark the one compelled
to act (which would be the subject of {qaw}) was a surprise,
but still didn't violate any existing grammar. It is truly
a mystery to me why this canon sentence has been so thoroughly
discounted for so long.
> MSN Forum, December 1, 1997:
> For the most part, entries in THE KLINGON DICTIONARY (and also in the
> addendum in KLINGON FOR THE GALACTIC TRAVELER) that consist of verb + suffix
> are indeed just that, verb + suffix.
> [...]
So why is the object of verb + {-moH} assumed to differ from that of plain verb?
> A problem comes in because some of these forms (that is, some of these verb
> + suffix combinations) are so common, they seem to, in the minds of some
> Klingons anyway, act as if they were simply verb, and not verb + suffix at
> all. This seems to happen only when the suffix in question is /-moH/
> "cause." [...] Speakers who do this seem to be aware that they are breaking
> the rules, so they are doing it for rhetorical effect. (It has the same
> sort of feeling, perhaps, as if someone were to say in English, "Don't
> cellular phone me this afternoon" or "I've been postnasal dripping all
> morning" ...) [...] and while some Klingon speakers may treat them as such,
> the wisest course is to leave such things to the poets and keep /-moH/ in
> its Type 4 position.
>
Huh? I don't see how this applies at all.
[...]
> You have yet to demonstrate any canon evidence whatsoever that the subject
> matter of the verb /ghoj/ is the natural object of the verb, or even the
> verb + /-moH/. Please do this.
We don't have much canon evidence of the natural object of lots of verbs,
but I think it is reasonable to assume it is the thing learned (as
you yourself did, above).
>
> Once again: I did NOT say "Your construction is wrong." I said your
> construction is "absolutely controversial." Do you disagree with this?
>
"Controversial", evidently, although I don't know about the "absolutely" part.
Anyway, I'll drop the thread as soon as you admit that your sentence
{yaS vIghojmoH} is unsupported by canon and therefore can't be "definitely
right" either.
> SuStel
> Stardate 3588.9
>
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}