tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 09 20:03:01 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again

Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

jIghItlhpu', jIjatlh:
> The {-moH} adds an object to otherwise objectless verbs, so I
> don't see why it shouldn't be fine to use {vI-} with {-'eghmoH}.

mujang SuStel, jatlh:
> Using -'egh or -chuq requires the no-object prefix, as per TKD 4.2.1.

net Sov. But TKD is simplified for non-linguists (as much of TKD is; you've
reminded me of that yourself in the past), and so more complex behaviours
of -'egh and -chuq - like what happens when you use -moH with them - are
simply not discussed. Since -'egh or -chuq on a bivalent verb basically
turns that verb into a univalent one for the purposes of agreement, it
makes sense (at least to me) that -moH on a bivalent-'egh or bivalent-chuq
complex can therefore change that univalent complex back into a bivalent
one. The paq'batlh example shows that this is indeed what happens.


jatlhtaH:
> Presumably this also means it requires that there be no object.

jang De'vID, jatlh: 

> 'ach chay' {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} DaQIj?

jang SuStel, jatlh:
> I dunno. Since paq'batlh was written by other and only vetted by Okrnad
> (I think), it will undoubtedly contain constructions that Okrand hadn't

> considered before.

The original story was written in English by others, but AFAIK the Klingon
version is Okrand's own work, with some assistance from several po'wI'pu'.

taH:
> Rather than say "no, here's how -moH REALLY works" (which I doubt he
> knows or remembers), he said okay because it sounded more or less right.
> In other words, he may have started to believe the subject-becomes-the-
> object argument which, until recently, even I accepted.

But for univalent verbs like Qong, chen or quv, that's *exactly* what goes
on. When a univalent verb takes -moH, the syntactic subject of the verb
*does* become demoted to direct object position. And it's not recent - it's
nothing to do with Okrand "believing the subject-becomes-object argument".
It's been consistently that way since TKD and canon examples are numerous:


tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH

"I form a boarding party" (TKD 4.2.4)


chIch vay' 'oy'moHmeH 'oy'naQ...
"in order that the painstik deliberately causes someone pain..." (S32)

...vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH vav quvHa'ghach
"...the father's dishonour dishonours his sons and their sons" (TKW 155)

etc.

> And it also looks very much like a "that's what it sounds like in English"
> argument.

cha' DoSmey DIqIpchu'. I think the paq'batlh example is entirely logical in
Klingon, without any recourse to English.

> To translate this, I'd say
> Qo'noS tuqmeyvaD tay'moHpu' qeylIS.
> Kahless caused (unspecified) to join, for the benefit of the Kronos tribes.

tay' is a univalent verb: "be together, be united" (witness its use as an
adjectival in wo' tay' "United Kingdom"), so its grammatical subject would
be demoted to direct object in the causative.

tay' Qo'noS tuqmey
the tribes of Kronos are united

can only become

Qo'noS tuqmey tay'moHpu' qeylIS
Kahless caused-to-be-united the tribes of Kronos

To me, using {-vaD} carries a completely different meaning here.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level