tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 08:59:29 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

understanding {-moH} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

ja' charghwI':
>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.

I've got a *little* more than one example to back me up.  The verbs
{pong} and {nob} appear to act very much like transitive verbs with
{-moH} in that they seem to want two objects, and they follow the same
pattern as {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} does when the objects are both 
third person.

>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 it's possible that the "verb prefix can be subverted" rule 
applies anytime the person of the two objects is different.  Consider
the {vaS'a'} joke:  {lutlhob}.  We know that {jatlh} doesn't take a 
person as its true object, but maybe the object of {tlhob} really *is*
the person being addressed and this doesn't help me out.  It's close, 
though.

>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.

I'm trying to be descriptive.  I'm not trying to change how we speak 
or how we construct sentences.  I'm merely proposing an alternative 
explanation for *why* we see what we see.  I happen to believe that my
way of thinking about {-moH} is a bit simpler than interpreting it as 
turning intransitive verbs into transitive ones.

TKD proper doesn't have *anything* to say about indirect objects.  It 
basically ignores the topic.  I wouldn't be surprised if most Klingons
never considered {HItujmoH} as anything other than what it looks like,
a transitive verb with a subject and a direct object.  But I also 
wouldn't be surprised to find that most Klingons were ignorant of the 
grammatical subtleties underlying this usage.  I mean, how many native
speakers of English *really* know when and why "whom" is appropriate, 
to the point where they could clearly explain it to someone?

>> ...I make
>> the argument that the verb's transitivity doesn't really change; it
>> is still intransitive....  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.

There's a big difference between what I'm doing and what you're
referring to.  I'm trying to give an interpretation of the grammar
underlying {-moH} that doesn't require special treatment for special
cases.  I'm not disagreeing with any examples, and I'm not proposing
anything that would change the way we say things.

>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 don't claim it's anything like an error, just that it's an example 
of a standard feature of the grammar that isn't explained in TKD.  We 
see it in {ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh, ghItlhlIj qanob} and elsewhere 
without explanation...and until it was explained, it *did* look like 
it was very nearly an error.  If my view of {-moH} is correct, then 
we've had uncounted examples of this "prefix-mangling" without even 
blinking, and it's not a "stylistic shortcut" but a mainstream piece
of Klingon grammar that's so ubiquitous that Maltz didn't even think
about having to explain it.

>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.

We only have a canon *example* of {-moH} on an already transitive 
verb.  We don't have an official grammatical explanation of it.  I'm
trying to offer one that *doesn't* treat it irregularly.  Perhaps it 
means going back and reevaluating some of the rules we've been using 
forever, but that does happen on occasion.  [q.v. verbs of saying]

>> 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.

Certainly.  In the "official" discussion of how the prefixes can be 
used to point to indirect objects, they can only be used when the
person of the true object and the beneficiary are different, and the 
true object is third person.  In "my model", I simply consider that 
the true object can also be absent.  In this case, the beneficiary can
be any person at all, including third person, and still be referred to
in the verb prefix.

>> {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. 

Huh?  These seem *very* different to me.
{jInguvmoH} "I cause to be painted" or "I paint"
{vInguvmoHlu'} "one causes me to be painted" or "I am painted"

My word results in something other than the speaker -- something
unspecified -- becoming dyed or tinted or stained.  Yours results in 
the speaker getting dyed or tinted or stained.  Perhaps you're just 
misunderstanding what part of the sentence I'm leaving unspecified?

{vay' vInguvmoH} -- "I paint something."  Now drop the object.
{jInguvmoH} -- "I paint."  Do you see what I'm saying here?

>> {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}. 

Again, one of us is very confused, and I think it's you this time.
{jIghojmoH} "I cause to learn" or "I teach"
{vIghojmoHlu'} "one causes me to learn" or "I am taught"

>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.

I wonder how you'd translate Kruge's line in Star Trek III:
"Exhilarating, isn't it?"  That's the source of my use of {tlhuHmoH} 
which started this whole discussion.

>> {jIchoHmoH} -- "I edit."
>vIchoHmoHlu'.

{jIchoHmoH} "I cause to change" or "I change [something unspecified]"
{vIchoHmoHlu'} "One causes me to change" or "I am changed"

Your words don't match the meaning I intend for mine to have.

>> 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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...but it's also not 
evidence of anything else. :-/  I admit I have no way of "proving" 
this theory about how {-moH} works, but I thought the idea would be 
compelling in its simplicity.  Perhaps the axiom "beauty is truth, 
truth beauty" doesn't apply to Klingon grammar? :-)  Or maybe to a
Klingon way of thinking, simplicity is ugly.

>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.

jIpuStaH 'e' vIchoHmoHbe'. :-P  jImultaH.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level