tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 09 18:43:31 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Brent Kesler
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Someone trying to use your semantic description of {-moH} would be confused
> at this point. You wrote, "The subject changes from whatever semantic role
> it has to CAUSE, and all other arguments the verb takes keep their original
> role". Since {Qong} has only one argument, it seems {QongmoH} should have
> only one argument. Instead, it acquires a *new* argument with a *new*
> semantic role. On top of that, the new object ends up being the old subject
> pretty consistently. That's an interesting pattern that deserves
> explanation.
I'm not invested in this debate, but I happen to have a proposed
explanation handy that I'm willing to share. Consider it an instance
of, or perhaps an extension of, the "prefix trick".
In known and officially explained cases, such as {qajatlh} and
{ro'qegh'Iwchab HInob}, the prefix points to a first- or second-person
"object" even though the true object is either null or third-person.
When the rule of {rom} is bent in this way, the mismatched prefix is
interpreted as indicating the beneficiary. I suggest that the trick
also works when the prefix indicates a third-person object but the
verb has no true object. With this interpretation, {Qang vIQongmoH} is
thus syntactical shorthand for {QangvaD jIQongmoH}. With this
interpretation, every occurrence of a verb of quality plus {-moH} with
an apparent object is actually an example of the prefix trick.
It also resolves the {tuQ} and {tuQmoH} question as a syntactical
issue. The "natural" object of {tuQ} is clothing, but if the clothing
isn't mentioned, the person being caused to wear it can trick his way
into the object slot.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol