tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 16 18:42:15 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lopno' - looking for general comment
ja' Qov:
>Here is are two issues I invite genreral comment on:
>
>1. Can *any* verb that could be used with /jIHvaD vay' <verb>/ also be
>used with /vay' HI<verb>/?
I don't see anything in the rules or later commentary that would keep it
from being possible. The "prefix trick" isn't all that clear anyway; we
just quickly recognize it on the common verbs like {nob} exactly because
they *are* commonly used that way.
[I have a small theory that most verbs with {-moH} are actually using the
prefix to point to the beneficiary of the action, and the verb has not
really had its transitivity reversed. This manages to apply the same
explanation to verbs that are transitive before {-moH} is used and ones
that are intransitive and/or stative. If this is the case, we see the
"prefix trick" all around us without flinching: {qaDoy'moH} might be
a variation on a more explicitly grammatical {SoHvaD jIDoy'moH}.]
>2. Can the "prefix trick" of using a verb prefix to refer to the
>indirect object instead of the direct object also be used when the
>prefix has already been reversed with /-lu'/.
That depends on whether Okrand's explanation of "verb prefixes indicating
first- or second-person object" applies to the *usual* meaning of the verb
prefix, or if it can be extended to the "reversed" meaning of the prefix
when {-lu'} is present. If it's the former, then {-lu'} is fundamentally
incompatible with the "prefix trick" because {-lu'} requires a prefix with
a nominal third-person object (or no object), and the "prefix trick" needs
a prefix with a nominal first- or second-person object. But if it's the
latter, there doesn't seem to be a conflict.
I never much liked the "verb prefix indicates indirect object" usage. It
always seemed like a backfit to a sloppy translation from English. I live
with it without complaint, and I have probably even used it on occasion (it
is, after all, officially part of the grammar of tlhIngan Hol). But while
I am not going to argue strongly in favor of expanding its use, I don't see
any immediate reasons why {jIHvaD vay' <V>} can't be said {vay' HI<V>} for
all verbs <V>.
-- ghunchu'wI'