tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 08 10:20:47 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghuHmoH
ghItlh SuStel:
> I believe I've found an instance of canon evidence that demonstrates my
> interpretation of -moH, that "subject causes object to verb."
>
> -----
> SkyBox card S31: Hegh bey
>
> When a Klingon warrior dies or is killed, other Klingons may perform a
> ceremonial howl or yell as part of the Klingon death ritual. The eyes of
> the fallen Klingon are opened and other roar in a great crescendo. This
> yell is victorious in nature, rather than mournful and also serves to warn
> the other dead that a Klingon warrior is coming.
>
> HeghDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' pagh tlhIngan SuvwI' HoHlu'DI' Heghtay lulop latlh
> tlhInganpu'. Heghtay luloptaHvIS chaH chaq bey SeQ lujach. Heghpu'bogh
> tlhIngan mInDu' lupoSmoHlu'. beyHom bey bey'a' jachtaH latlh tlhInganpu'.
> yay 'oS bey. 'IQ pagh. Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey. ghoS tlhIngan
> SuvwI' maq.
> -----
>
> The key sentence here is the penultimate one. First, /ghuH/ "prepare for,
> be alerted to" is definitely a transitive verb. This is evidenced both in
> the definition, and in canon: TKW p. 56, /tlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng
> yIghuH/ "When you insult a Klingon's honor, prepare for trouble."
>
Wow, good find. I've got to concede this one to you. However, I think the
jury is still out on its ultimate significance.
>
> One further comment. I talked with Mark about this on the MUSH earlier
> today, and he commented that he found my sentence, /yaS vIghojmoH; tlhIngan
> Hol ghoj/, "I teach the officer Klingon" to be "wordily overcautious" (or
> was it "overcautiously wordy"?). I disagreed, pointing out that we often
> see multiple sentences combined in Klingon to produce a concept. Now, with
> the /ghuHmoH/ example, we see that Okrand has used something very similar to
> my construction.
>
My quibble with it was not that it used two sentences, but that
I thought the first sentence was not as proven correct as you
did.
> And now for some speculation:
>
> KGT p. 153 mentions the word /DISmoH/ means "cause to confess." This is
> described as a standard equivalent to the slang /luH/ "cause [someone] to
> confess, cause [someone] to reveal a secret." The slang word /luH/ is used
> transitively in the example, and it seems likely to me that one may simply
> substitute /DISmoH/ in wherever you see /luH/. The example slang sentence
> is /jav luHpu' 'avwI'/. No mention is made of any unusual grammar, just
> slang words. This leads me to believe that the equivalent standard sentence
> would be /qama' DISmoH 'avwI'/. NOT */qama'vaD [HeS**] DISmoH 'avwI'/. (**
> Or whatever.)
>
It's never been in dispute that {-moH} adds an object to an
intransitive verb and that subject causes object to verb (or
to experience verb).
From the TKD gloss, it looks to me like {DIS} is intransitive
("to confess", not *"to confess (something)" , so
{DISmoH} would indeed take an object, and that object
would be the one caused to act. So it does parallel the use
of {luH}, no argument there.
> Furthermore, the word /peghHa'moH/ is also used on that page. However,
> given the tricky nature of /pegh/, it's not worth mentioning beyond that.
Amen to that.
> Likewise with /mevmoH/ on p. 154, although this is glossed as "cause
> [someone] to stop," and /mev/ is glossed right there as a comparison:
> "[someone] stops."
>
I'm thinking of the standard example {bIjatlh 'e' yImev}. {mev} here is
clearly transitive. So, Okrand's own example above should properly
be ?"[someone] stops [something]". Since this refinement is missing
in Okrand's gloss of {mev}, we can't really say that the gloss of
{mevmoH} is complete, especially since he just mentions it in
passing and doesn't use it in a sentence. It could very well be
?"cause [someone] to stop [something]". Or maybe {mev} is a
verb like {pegh} whose transitivity seems to be variable. But
there are verbs which appear to be permanently one or the
other, and these are the ones we should focus on for now.
> Another example from KGT is /DoHmoH/ "drive back" (from /DoH/ "back away
> from, back off, get away from." Unfortunately, this word is not used in a
> sentence.
>
If {DoH} is transitive, and it appears to be ("back away _from_"),
then I'd expect the object of {DoHmoH} to be the thing or
location backed away from: ?{SuvwI'vaD DujwIj vIDoHmoH}
"I make the warrior back away from my ship." But since
it isn't used in a sentence, we just don't know.
> And let's not forget those /-'eghmoH/ examples.
>
I suspect that {-'egh} is only required with imperatives: {yItam'eghmoH}. We
know from the Klingon warrior's song that it is not required with indicative
forms: {Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw}. Maybe the object was considered too
ambiguous with the imperative prefix, so {-'egh} is inserted to make it
clearer.
> -----
>
> I'm back to being pretty darned sure that /yaS vIghojmoH; tlhIngan Hol ghoj/
> is the right way to do this.
>
I admire your research skills, but all we can really say is that we
now have two grammatically valid sentences that contradict each
other. Since both came from the same source (i.e., Skybox card
texts), there's no basis for dismissing either one out of hand.
Maybe one is simply wrong and the other right, or maybe there
is a way to understand them both.
<Speculation alert!!>
Let's switch from {ghoj} back to {qaw}, which is the verb that
started this thread. Although {qaw} and {ghuH} are both transitive,
maybe they are not the same type of verb. {qawmoH} behaves the way
I would expect an originally-transitive verb to behave;
{ghuHmoH} acts more like an intransitive verb, but the gloss and
your example clearly show transitive use of {ghuH}.
However, {qaw} seems more action-oriented than {ghuH}, and
its object is the thing affected by the action: one remembers, and
the result is a memory. On the other hand, {ghuH} seems to
describe a state, and its object to describe the reason for that
state: one is alerted because of trouble. The behavior of purely
intransitive verbs is not in dispute; maybe transitive action
verbs follow the {(compelled actor)-vaD (object) (verb)-moH}
pattern and transitive stative verbs (are there any others? ?{vav
vIQeH} "I'm angry at father") follow the intransitive
{(compelled object) (verb)-moH} pattern.
</Speculation alert>
Or, it may be that there is no pattern at all, and every verb behaves
uniquely
when {-moH} is added. I really hope Okrand doesn't make Klingon that
arbitrary, but it wouldn't be the first time that Klingon has broken my heart
8+).
> SuStel
> Stardate 3600.7
>
qechmeyvam vIqeltaHvIS, tlhIngan Hol vIlo'be'ba'. qatlh? mu'meywIj yajchu'
jabbI'IDghomvam Hoch jeSwI'pu' vIneH neH ('ej qechmeyvam qellu'DI',
DIvI' Hol lo'lu'taHvIS Qatlh yajmeH ghu', 'ach tlhIngan Hol lo'lu'taHvIS,
Qatlhqu'!).
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}