tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 10:54:04 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

-moH (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:06:27 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> <-moH> ngach ghunchu'wI' charghwI' je.
> 
> charghwI' has argued that a no object prefix cannot be used on a
> transitive verb with -moH. ghunchu'wI' disagrees and gave some examples,
> including <jIghojmoH> for "I teach". charghwI' rejected this and other
> examples. I need to think more on charghwI''s general argument, but for
> this particular example, he is wrong. TKD gives <ghojmoH> as "teach,
> instruct" in a separate entry. I don't know whether this entry is an
> entirely different verb or just <ghoj> plus <-moH>, but it does clearly
> indicate that we can use <jIghojmoH> for "I teach". Whether this can be
> generalized will certainly be the subject of a long debate.
> 
> pagh

Well, as one might expect, I disagree that {ghojmoH} is 
different from any other verb with {-moH} on it. It is a happy 
accident that we have a different verb for teach than we do for 
learn, but Klingon doesn't, so if Okrand did not list {ghojmoH} 
as a separate entry in the dictionary, if you looked up "teach", 
you would not find it. I'm convinced that is the only reason it 
is listed there.

Meanwhile, just because you can say, "I teach" in English does 
not mean you can say "I cause to learn" in Klingon. The problem 
is that what you really have there is an infinitive, which 
Okrand says Klingon doesn't have, though it does seem to have it 
in verbs using {-meH} in many examples.

By "infinitive", I mean a verb with no subject. Klingon has 
{-lu'} specifically because it can't tolerate the use of a verb 
with no subject. It has no problem with the object being vague 
or missing, but there has to be a subject on all Klingon verbs 
(except many times, verbs with {-meH} in Okrand's own examples). 
When using {-moH} on an intransitive verb, the description we've 
been given about the grammar is that the subject indicated by 
the verb prefix refers to the agent of causation. The object 
indicated by the verb's prefix is the subject of the root verb.

ghunchu'wI' is proposing that it is okay for the root verb to 
not have a subject. That is what sets my teeth on edge. By 
saying that a verb with {-moH} needs no object, you are saying 
that its root verb needs no subject. The root verb becomes an 
infinitive. {*jIghojmoH} doesn't mean "I teach". It means "I 
cause to learn". "To learn" is an infinitive. There is no 
subject. Klingon doesn't do that, except sometimes with {-meH} 
when it translates as "in order to [root]" instead of "in order 
that x [root]s".

Perhaps this is the second grammatical area where there is an 
exception to the general rule that Klingon verbs are never in 
the form of an infinitive. I think this is a big enough leap to 
take cautiously. It makes sense in English because English has 
infinitives very casually. All verbs have an infinitive form and 
verbs are often used as infinitives in English.



I'm concerned that this may be another blind spot created by the 
nature of English, similar to the one created because our 
relative pronouns look just like our question words. English has 
infinitives. It is very natural for us to want to use them in 
Klingon as well, but in most cases we can't. I'm not convinced 
this {jI[root]moH} idea is a good use of them.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level