tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 19:57:51 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)



ja' charghwI':
>...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.

Whether or not you agree with my argument, I'm pleased to see that you
understand it.

>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.

My interpretation manages to avoid these irregularities completely, by
considering {-moH} as *not* changing the verb's transitivity.

ja' Qermaq:
> <-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>...

ja'qa' charghwI':
>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?

The difference between {jIghojmoH} and {vItIn} is that {jIghojmoH} has a
single obvious meaning.  We don't have any examples that can tell us what
{tIn} could have as its object.  I understand your reluctance to accept
{jIghojmoH}, but I think it follows the grammatical rules correctly.

>[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.

On occasion, I get an odd idea about a "different" way to explain the
way the language is working.  Usually, my explanations don't offer any
compelling reason why they should be considered instead of the ones we
have been using all along.  This time I think it's not just different,
but even a bit better.  It explains the {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} example
perfectly, while treating it just like any other use of {-moH}.

>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".

I appreciate your keeping an open mind on this one.

>> >{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.

I recall your being on the other end of a similar debate a while ago,
considering whether {jInob} has a sensible meaning.  The point is the
same this time -- is there any reason to insist that a particular verb
*must* have an object?

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level