tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 06 08:59:18 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: De''e' neHbogh charghwI'
- Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:01:40 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
charghwI'vo':
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Neal Schermerhorn
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> puq vIqIp
> I hit the child.
>
> vIqIp
> I hit (him/her). (object is clear in context)
>
> yaS vIqIpmoH
> I cause the officer to hit. (no object being "hit")
>
> yaSvaD puq vIqIpmoH
> I cause the hitting of the child for the officer.
>
> ?*yaSvaD vIqIpmoH
> I cause the hitting (of an understood object) for the officer.
>
> These seem distinct to me. Perhaps we have canon to make the last one clearly
> wrong. I await your responses!
I think you have a good point. I see it as the difference
between saying, "I caused the officer to hit him," and "I caused
the officer to hit." If you want the first of these two
meanings, then I think your questioned example is correct. In
all canon examples where the unmarked noun in the direct object
position for a verb + {-moH} is the agent/subject of the root
verb's action, the verb is intransitive. There is no direct
object of the action of the verb. If you want there to be such a
specific object explicit or implicit (suggested by the prefix),
then I think it is proper to mark the agent-noun with {-vaD}.
> Qermaq
charghwI'