tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 02 12:47:13 2014

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects with -moH

Robyn Stewart ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



I definitely don't want to introduce the prefix trick. It's something that follows -vaD in understanding, not precedes it, and it's not on the syllabus. I was just trying to clarify what charghwI' was suggesting.

Something that IS on the syllabus are the words meQ and ghor, and I want to tell the students how to use them. 

TKD would suggest that usage is: 
meQ veQ. – The garbage burns.
veQ meQmoH loDHom. – The boy burns the garbage.

But canon says:
Ha’DIbaHmey meQ Sop.
to’waQ meQ vutwI’   
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
pIpyuS DaSop DaneHchugh pIpyuS puS DaghornIS.
pel’aQDaj ghorpa’

Three completely different uses for meQ and two for ghor. My current choice is to teach the Qam/QammoH, SIch/SIchmoH and  'oy'/'oy'moH type pair that translate single English words hurt, reach and stand,  then introduce meQ and ghor as unexpected exceptions, or possibly errors by MO, intending the student to understand that other verbs are subject to unexpected revelations. 

The vocabulary list for this lesson is:
burn, (v)
break, (v)
become, (v)
slit, (v)
disappear, vanish, (v)
destroy, (v)
hide, cloak, (v)
fill, (v)
alter, change, (v)
melt, (v)

It's going to be a lot harder than the lesson on -qa'. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: SuStel [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: June 2, 2014 8:23
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects with -moH

On 6/2/2014 11:07 AM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
> Yes, the “prefix trick” and some excellent discussion that unites the 
> canon is specifically referenced at the bottom of my first e-mail. I’m 
> not confused about the grammar here. I want to make sure I’m neither 
> being too careful nor too presumptuous in stating what is uncontroversial.
>
> Are you suggesting that I introduce the prefix trick for the beginner 
> now, reduce the material presented, or leave it the same? I want the 
> beginner to know that there is more here than meets the eye, or they 
> will assume some way is correct and start using it. **I** can avoid 
> any situation that requires a choice of objects, but without pointing 
> out to the beginner that the peril exists, I can’t keep her away from it.

You don't want to introduce the prefix trick here, as that opens the way to asking questions about what an object actually is, whether Klingon cares about direct and indirect objects, how those are used, and so forth. TKD never makes the distinction until the addendum. In your explanation, you're also avoiding the issue by not mentioning direct and indirect objects, but you speak of a "second object," though you immediately say it's beyond the lesson's scope.

I recommend not adding more to your current explanation. "Beyond the scope" is a good way to say that the issue is complex, but let's not think about it right now.

You might want to make a note about HOW a student can avoid this problem. However, I suggest NOT phrasing it in terms of adding causation to a transitive sentence, or of transforming one sentence into another by adding -moH). Rather, you should recommend that students avoid attempting single-verb sentences about one noun causing a second noun to do something to a third noun, because it is unclear how the grammar works. You can even give an example, perhaps of such a sentence split into grammatically uncontroversial parts.

--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol


Back to archive top level