tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 27 15:02:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:26:49 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jIja'pu':
> >>tIqwIjvaD qaDuQmoH - "I cause my heart to stab you"
> >
> >This one is not at all obvious. It seems to me that it has a much stronger
> >chance of meaning of "I cause you to stab for the benefit of my heart."
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >When I think about the way Okrand has used {-moH} on transitive
> >verbs, this fits the pattern. The subject of verb+moH is the
> >agent of causation. The indirect object is the agent of the
> >root verb's action and the direct object is the direct object of
> >the root verb's action.
>
> Yes, it fits the pattern. I don't deny that pagh's sentence *can* be
> interpreted with the desired meaning. I just think it calls out more
> strongly for the alternate interpretation I pointed out.
But your alternate interpretation has no prior example
justifying it that I know of. You seem to be ignoring the {-vaD}
and pretending like the {qa-} is an example of the prefix
shortcut so that the implied object "you" is an indirect object.
That would give you two indirect objects and no direct object.
> >The interpretation you are now giving matches the one most of us
> >had before seeing Okrand's one example and we generally
> >abandoned that interpretation and took on the newer one.
> >Meanwhile, you were one of the first people saying that the new
> >way made sense.
>
> I think it's a matter of conflicting with the "prefix trick". Using a
> second-person object on a transitive verb plus {-moH} just triggers
> too many patterns in my brain simultaneously, and the wrong one comes
> through most clearly when I look at this example.
Well, if the second person object indicated by the prefix
contrasted with an explicit third person direct object, I'd
agree with you, but the only candidate for that happens to have
{-vaD} on it. The prefix shortcut doesn't work here.
> >I think this reads as "I cause my heart to stab you." I also
> >happen to think that is gibberish, but that is the way I'd sort
> >out the subject, object, causative agent, etc.
>
> After I "work out" the intended grammar, I can hear it either way with
> neither interpretation really calling out any louder than the other.
> But the immediate meaning I get isn't the one pagh was trying to give.
And I still can only see one interpretation, gibberish though it
may be. I don't see the heart has having a hand to grip a sword
or any sharp blades of its own. I could as easily stab you with
a tribble.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'