tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 04:19:24 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch

bIghoHchu', jupwI', 'ach wej choponbej. choponbe'bej.

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:20:33 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> jIja'pu':
> > I intend {tlhuHmoH} to mean "it exhilarates" with no object.  Not merely
> > an indefinite one, but none at all.  The subject is supposed to be "it",
> > referring to the previously elucidated situation.
> 
> ja' charghwI':
> >I feel quite unsure that this is a possible expression in
> >Klingon. {-moH} implies that something is the subject of the
> >action which is being caused. I know of no other setting
> >(except perhaps certain useage of {-meH}) in which there is no
> >subject on a verb. There may be no object, and the subject may
> >be indefinite, but otherwise, each verb needs a subject, and
> >with {-moH} there are TWO subjects, since causation is itself
> >an implied verb. One entity is subject of the causation and the
> >other entity is the subject of the action of the verb.
> 
> This is a reasonable argument, but I don't happen to view {-moH}
> that way.  There's no need to see it as causing "something else"
> to "do something".  It merely causes an action to take place, and
> that action still has the same object it always did.  What you
> call the "subject of the action which is being caused" I see as
> the beneficiary of the action.

>From our one small example of how transitive verbs handle the 
dual objects created when {-moH} is added to the verb, you have 
tossed out the much larger collection of canon, mistakenly 
ascribing to it the prefix shortcut for indirect objects which 
Okrand tells us only works with first or second person indirect 
objects. Meanwhile, there are examples of the use of {-moH} on 
intransitive verbs with third person objects.

Clearly, something is amiss here. Either Okrand is allowing an 
exception to the rule of when indirect objects may be compressed 
into pronouns represented in the verb prefix, or the overall 
grammar for {-moH} is simply a wee bit different than you take 
it to be.
 
> I think the argument can be distilled to the use of verb prefixes
> and {-moH}.  Until we got the example of a transitive verb using
> {-vaD} for what would have been the subject of the verb without
> {-moH}, your take on what {-moH} does seemed uncontroversial and
> quite natural.  But now that we *do* see how the apparent dual-
> object nature of a {-moH}'ed transitive verb works, and now that
> we have many, many examples of the bending of verb prefixes to
> indicate the beneficiary instead of the object, I think we need
> to rethink what's "really" going on with {-moH}.

Again, I think you forget that this bending only occurs with 
first or second person indirect objects. I think we have perhaps 
a clue as to what is occurring in the case of transitives, but I 
don't think you can accurately backfit that to your newly 
restructured intransitive use of {-moH}.

Simply put, as many examples of {-moH} as we have in canon, 
there are ZERO uses that are similar to yours. You have 
basically invented a new grammar. It was logically deduced, I 
will agree, but it ignores the description of the use of {-moH} 
in TKD and it ignores every use of {-moH} in canon except one, 
and it takes a rather radical spin on that one example.
 
> Based on the way things like {bIvum/chovummoH} look, it makes sense
> to think that {-moH} changes the verb to be transitive.  But I make
> the argument that the verb's transitivity doesn't really change; it
> is still intransitive.  "You toil" + {-moH} becomes simply "You cause
> to toil."  In order to say "You cause me to toil" it would have to
> be literally "You cause to toil for me" or {jIHvaD bIvummoH}.  But
> we also have the "verb prefix shortcut" that can turn this into the
> commonly seen {chovummoH}.  It only *looks* transitive, but behind
> the scenes it's just an intransitive verb with an indirect object.

Your twisted logic strikes me as very similar to my own when I 
deduced that Okrand's example in TKD's phrase section {quSvamDaq 
ba'lu''a'?"} was a mistake. It didn't follow the rules given in 
the grammar section of TKD.

What ultimately resolved this apparent paradox was the simple 
fact that transitive verbs with {-lu'} are simply handled 
differently than intransitive verbs with {-lu'}. I sincerely 
believe that the same is true for {-moH}.

You have now decided that every single example of the use of 
{-moH}, except for that one example on a SkyBox card, is very 
nearly an error. It is a stylistic shortcut which does not quite 
honestly present the grammar actually in play.

I disagree. I think the grammatical use of {-moH} in Klingon is 
simply irregular as we shift between transitive and intransitive 
verbs. There's a great deal of canon around to back up my claim.
 
> This way of thinking avoids the "double-object" problem that occurs
> when you try to apply {-moH} to a transitive verb while thinking of
> it as "subject of the bare verb becomes the object of causation".

Indeed, I suspect I was the first to voice this argument. I 
think I may have even convinced you, perhaps a tad too well, 
that this was the grammar in effect. Now, I have to mend the 
wound I have possibly created in your model of this part of 
Klingon grammar.

> The same grammar applies as in the intransitive case, but this time
> there is often a direct object that interferes with trying to use the
> "shortcut" prefixes.

Again, shortcut prefixes only work with first and second person 
for indirect objects. Explain the dropping of that requirement 
in your model of this grammatical realm.
 
> Now that I've gotten the argument out of the way, I'll suggest a few
> more examples of {V-moH} with no object.
> 
> {jInguvmoH} -- "I paint."

I'd be interested to know the difference you see in meaning 
between {*jInguvmoH} and {vInguvmoHlu'}. I suggest there IS no 
difference in meaning. Meanwhile, one uses existing rules of 
grammar while the other depends upon an extention of an 
interpretation of a single, unexplained example in canon.

> {jIghojmoH} -- "I teach."

vIghojmoHlu'. "I teach." The meaning is the same and it doesn't 
present us with the previously unseen intransitive prefix on a 
verb with {-moH}. I mean, as many times as {-moH} has been used, 
surely ONCE we would have seen it with an intransitive prefix if 
this were a valid construct.

> {jIchoHmoH} -- "I edit."

vIchoHmoHlu'.
 
> I think these should be just as acceptable as {jISop} and {jInoj}.

I don't. We have examples in canon of {jISop} and other 
transitive verb roots with intransitive prefixes, but we have no 
examples of an intransitive prefix on a verb with {-moH}. None. 
Zero. pagh. Zed. Zilch. Nada.

I'll credit you that this is a very interesting idea, but I do 
not believe that it is a valid one. DoSmey DIqIp. chaq 
bIQeqchoHchu'chugh wa' DoS wIqIpchoH.
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'

Back to archive top level