Re: VS1, VS4, VS5

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

Nice analysis, though I get stuck on one example:

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:06:24 -0800 (PST) Marc Ruehlaender 
<ruehli@iastate.edu> wrote:

> This is going to be quite technical...
> 
> > ja' Holtej:
> > >Here's a grammatical question; I'd like to hear people's opinions.  What do
> > >you make of this:
> > >
> > >vIqIp'eghmoHlu'
> > 
> In order to get an idea of what it might mean, here are some steps
> that I've been taken...
> 
> a) straightforward are
> 
> <O> qIp <S>.           <S> hits <O>.
> qIp'egh <S>.           <S> hits itself.
> <S>vaD <O> qIpmoH <C>. <C> makes <S> hit <O>.
> <O> qIplu'.            One hits <O>.
> 
> b) combine two of the three suffixes:
> 
> <S>vaD qIp'eghmoH <C>. <C> makes <S> hit itself.
> <O> qIp'eghmoH <C>.    <C> makes itself hit <O>.
> 
> qIp'eghlu'.            One hits oneself.
> 
> <S>vaD <O> qIpmoHlu'.  One makes <S> hit <O>.
> <O> qIpmoHlu' <C>.     <C> makes one hit <O>.

This one REALLY bothers me, though I suspect you may be right. I 
just have never seen a subject to the left of {-lu'} before and 
it gives me the willies to see that happen.

I see how you got to it, and as I said, you may very well be 
right. Meanwhile, we have only one canon example that included 
both {-moH} and {-lu'} and it is as weird as your example, but 
quite different from it:

HeghqangmoHlu'pu' - it made him/her willing to die

TKD page 45.

One assumes the "it" is the indefinite subject, so it could be 
"One made him/her willing to die," and not, as you've put it 
"He/she made one willing to die." Meanwhile, we know that 
context sometimes dictates which way intersecting suffixes 
interact, so I can't say with certainty that you are not right.

I can only say that I have not met a {-moHlu'} that I liked.
 
> c) all three suffixes:
> 
> <S>vaD qIp'eghmoHlu'.  One makes <S> hit itself.
> <O> qIp'eghmoHlu'.     One makes oneself hit <O>.
> qIp'eghmoHlu' <C>.     <C> makes one hit oneself.
> 
> As vI- indicates a subject, that must be <C>, and also an
> object, that must be <O> (the IO shortcut doesn't work here),
> but I cannot figure out how to have both, I'd be left confused...
> 
> any thoughts?

Yes. Just be confused. It is confusing. This is one of those 
dark corners of the grammar that I leave alone, realizing that 
there are billions of things I can express clearly with the 
language. This doesn't have to be one of them.

I can't imagine a way that anyone could formulate something with 
{-moHlu'} and expect others to understand it without 
explanation, and if you have to explain it in other terms, why 
not express it in other terms in the first place?
 
>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq
>                                            ruehli@iastate.edu
> 

charghwI' 'utlh