tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 10:53:28 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:07:10 -0800 (PST) Neal Schermerhorn 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ghItlh charghwI' ghunchu'wI' je:
> 
> >>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"

HIvqa' veqlargh! I got confused because {-moH} and {-lu'} both 
have a definite effect on the way the prefixes are interpreted. 
I thought they interfered with each other and now I see that 
they don't. I stand corrected.
 
> If I say <nguvmoH> this is clearly "He causes (something) to be tinted" - or
> is it "He causes IT to be tinted"??? It's both. Both are acceptable.
> <nguvmoH> can be "He paints" or "He paints it." Seems clear to me.

Right. So, my point is that it would have been better as 
{vInguvmoH} and not {jInguvmoH}. My problem was really with the 
intransitive prefix on a verb with {-moH}. I still believe that 
{-moH} applied to intransitive verbs makes them transitive. To 
then use that combination intransitively, using the {jISop} 
arguement seems to sidestep the function of {-moH}. It may be 
that ghunchu'wI' is correct and I just can't jump that gap, but 
it is a rather nasty gap to jump. I cause X to be painted. 
Seeing that, I thought {-lu'}, but that was a brain fart. I felt 
that X needed to be there in some form.
 
> Using <vI-> with <-lu'> makes first person sing. the object, so
> <vInguvmoHlu'> is "Someone/Something causes me to be tinted." I am curious
> to discover your logic, charghwI'.

Synapse short circuit.
 
> >>> {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"

And you are completely right. I meant to contrast {vIghojmoH} 
with your suggested {jIghojmoH}, which I honestly believe to be 
wrong.
 
> I see... and I agree, ghunchu'wI'. <jI-> does NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT mean there
> is no object - it means there is no STATED object. I have been in the fray
> of the question "Is there a Klingon transitive/intransitive distinction?"
> too many times to not point out that <jISop> can mean that I'm eating
> something, but I'm not referring to it now. Not all verbs can have an
> object, I feel, but those which can may take a no-object prefix. This does
> not equal intransitive use!!!

I see {jISop} as grammatically different from {*jIghojmoH}. The 
latter splits {-moH} into THREE different irregularities: 
It is applied to transitives splitting the two objects into 
direct and indirect object along interesting boundaries, it is 
applied to intransitive verbs to make them transitive, 
involving causation and action of the root verb, and it is 
applied to intransitive verbs in order to get a transitive 
meaning which is not used transitively. Yuck.
 
> <-moH> verbs are no different, I suggest. If we free ourselves from the
> confusion of the title "no object prefix", we will know that there's no
> reason to object to use of <jI-> on <ghojmoH>. We are not specifying who is
> learning, no. We are not referring to the students. They are implied, as
> teachers are not teachers without students. But would anyone suggest to
> answer the question <chay' Huch Dabaj'a'?> by saying <ghojwI'pu'
> vIghojmoH>??? Or <vay' vIghojmoH>? <vIghojmoH> alone even is stilted - it
> translates "I teach him/them". But that's not really needed to answer the
> question, is it? Once we free ourselves from the illusion that seeing
> no-object prefixes must mean that it will be translated into an intransitive
> verb in English, we can then use the prefixes effectively for communication.

And while you are at it, why not free yourself from the sense 
that you can't say, {vItIn}? Free yourself from wondering what 
QAO really would be translated as and just use it anyway. Free 
yourself from OVS word order. Grammar just gets in the way, 
anyway, right?

[charghwI' gets a grip.]

Okay. I'm calm.

I don't believe that it is often wise to "just free yourself" 
from basic grammatical understandings. We may be able to figure 
out why something which has been understood one way for a decade 
or so might have somehow been a misunderstanding that survived 
so many years of scrutiny. I tend to be slow to do that, 
especially when it has nothing to do with anything Okrand has 
explained to us or given us any example for.

You may well be right about this, but please respect that the 
language has been around for a while now and nobody has seen it 
this way before and there is no canon to support it. I think 
caution is worthwhile here. I think it is a little fair to ask 
for a little time to consider this and examine it before "just 
feeling free".

> >{jIchoHmoH} "I cause to change" or "I change [something unspecified]"

That's pretty vague. I'm not certain that it has meaning. This 
is my whole point.
 
> This one translates poorly into English, and I can't think of a context in
> which it's useful, but it's legal and correct.

I'm not certain this is a true statement. If it is not clearly 
meaningful, then, well, why does it exist?
 
> Qermaq

charghwI'

Back to archive top level