tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 08 15:31:07 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:33 AM, David Trimboli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:[email protected]"; target="_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I am more and more convinced that {-moH} indicates a change in semantic roles, not syntactic roles, and that your above conjecture is correct. The subject changes role from agent or experiencer or whatever it is to cause. The object is NOT affected by the semantic change, but is still syntactically the thing to which the action as a whole is done.<br>
<br>
I will use explicit pronouns below and use the thematic relations described in Wikipedia: <<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relations"; target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<u></u>Thematic_relations</a>><br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The problem with thematic relations and theta roles is that they're subjective. It's hard for two people to look at the same sentence and come up with the same thematic description. For example, in the sentence "Mary is sad", we can both agree that Mary is the experiencer of the verb-qoq 'to be sad'. The sentence "Mary cries" is problematic. Is Mary the agent of crying? Does that imply will on Mary's part? If Mary cannot choose to cry or stop crying, would it be better to describe her as the experiencer? If she forces herself to cry, is she the agent? The cause? How are we supposed to figure all that out from just the simple sentence "Mary cries"? Even the Wikipedia article point out these problems:</div>
<div><br></div><div>-- quote --</div><div>There are no clear boundaries between these relations. For example, in "the hammer broke the window", some linguists treat hammer as an agent, some others as instrument, while some others treat it as a special role different from these.</div>
<div>-- end quote --</div>
<div><br></div><div>That's why it's better to rely on syntax. We can disagree on on the thematic relations and theta roles in a sentence, but the syntactic position is clear. "Mary" is the subject of "cries", regardless of whether she is agent, experiencer, or cause.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
HIp vItuQ jIH<br>
I wear a uniform (habitually or occasionally, not continuous or perfective)<br>
HIp = theme<br>
jIH = experiencer<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why is {jIH} the experiencer? Why not agent? I assume it's an act of will to wear a uniform.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The only difference is that we've added -moH to indicate that I don't just wear a uniform; I CAUSE this action of wearing. The semantic role of the object does not change just because I have indicated that the subject is the cause and not necessarily the experiencer.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the only reason this argument works is that you've chosen to think of {jIH} as an experiencer rather than an agent. You could just as easily interpret {jIH} as an agent in the first sentence, but then that would overlap with cause, making {-moH} redundant and unproductive--which is why thematic roles are so problematic.</div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Notice that these meanings are all habitual or occasional—they don't refer to a concrete act of wearing a uniform. If we do that, the semantic role of HIp changes...<br>
<br>
HIp vItuQta' jIH<br>
I wore the uniform<br>
HIp = patient<br>
jIH = experiencer<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why does the semantic role of {HIp} change when you add {-ta'}? Why is {HIp} a patient in this sentence, but a theme in {HIp vItuQ}? Why can't {HIp} be a patient in the first sentence and a theme in this one?</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What this says is that it doesn't matter what roles other nouns play in the sentence; they don't change. Only the subject changes from whatever its role was to become a CAUSE.<br>
<br>
Does this also apply to -moH on verbs of quality?<br>
<br>
jIQeHtaH jIH<br>
I am angry<br>
jIH = experiencer<br>
<br>
jIQeHmoHtaH jIH<br>
I cause (someone unspecified) to be angry<br>
jIH = cause<br>
There is no longer a noun acting in the experiencer role, so we don't know who is angry. Notice that the continuous -taH applies to the anger, not the causing.<br>
<br>
yaS vIQeHmoHtaH jIH<br>
I cause the officer to be angry<br>
yaS = experiencer<br>
jIH = cause<br>
<br>
It does apply to verbs of quality, because there is ample space to add an object. It's an object not because it's the object of my causing, but because it's an object of the action as a whole.<br>
<br>
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what's going on with -moH, and that this is what Okrand had in mind when he created it. -moH doesn't flip-flop subject to object; it ONLY changes the semantic role of the subject to CAUSE. Everything else in the sentence is interpreted exactly as before.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
quHDaj qaw 'oH<br>
It (experiencer) remembers his heritage (theme)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The sentence that started this debate so long ago was {wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj} "The sash reminds Worf of his heritage". So what you're saying here is that the sash remembers his heritage? That the sash experiences the memory itself?</div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
quHDaj qawmoH 'oH<br>
It (cause) causes (an unspecified experiencer) to remember his heritage (theme)<br>
<br>
ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH 'oH<br>
It (cause) causes to remember his heritage (theme); he (beneficiary) is the beneficiary<br>
So this really does mean "it causes him to remember his heritage." It just doesn't mean it in a word-for-word matchup with the English version.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The problem I have with this interpretation is that {wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj} implies {quHDaj qaw wo'rIv}, not {quHDaj qaw Ha'quj}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>At the start of your post, you argued that "The object is NOT affected by the semantic change, but is still syntactically the thing to which the action as a whole is done." You break that rule with {yaS vIQeHmoH}. Why does {QeH} -- which does not take an object -- suddenly gain one when {-moH} is added? If {QeH} can take an object, what is its semantic role? Why does the hypothetical object of {QeH} change thematic roles when you add {-moH}, but {tuQ} and {qaw} do not?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Semantic roles are subjective and unpredictable, so they make a poor guide for the use of verb suffixes. A syntactic rule is generalizable and objective. The rule for {-moH} is:</div><div><br></div><div>
New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes a non-core argument, and the original O remains the O.</div><div><br></div><div>Demonstration:</div><div>1. quHDaj (O) qaw wo'rIv (A).</div><div>2. wo'rIvvaD (original A) quHDaj (O) qawmoH Ha'quj (new A).</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I have to confess, I don't know what to make of {tuQmoH}. It doesn't seem to fit the syntactic rule, but it doesn't fit the proposed semantic rule either (in so far as that rule is subjective). I think it's a victim of semantic drift, like {lo'laH}.</div>
<div><br></div><div>bI'reng.</div></div>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}