tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 09 13:54:45 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: deep structures



On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:02:27 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

...
> >> I tend to interpret {-moH} more as modifying the meaning of the verb
> >> itself than as reassigning roles of the surrounding nouns.
> >
> >In that case, I think you are just going through some
> >subconscious reassigning of the nouns, because the "change" you
> >describe for the verbs really changes the relationship of those
> >verbs with their related nouns.
> 
> You seem to have difficulty with reading {SopmoH} as a verb meaning
> "make eat" without explicitly considering a transformation from the
> {Sop} when {-moH} is added.  Does {ghojmoH} have the same problem
> for you?

I don't see it as a problem. It's just the way {-moH} works. 
When I see {ghojmoH}, I don't think the word "teach". I think 
"cause to learn". The closest English word is "teach", but I see 
this as a recognition that to successfully teach is to cause to 
learn. I think "teach" is the closest single word to {ghojmoH}, 
but if it breaks down to subtle shades of meaning, {ghojmoH} is 
closer to "cause to learn" than it is to "teach". I think 
"teach" is just in the dictionary as a tag to help people look 
up "cause to learn". If "teach wasn't there, people would miss 
{ghoj} and not think of {ghojmoH}.

> >> Example:
> >> {nguv} "it is tinted"; {nguvmoH} "it tints, it paints".  I don't pay
> >> much attention to what the subject and object of the un-moH'ed verb
> >> would be when I hear a -moH'ed one, unless the verb is one I am not
> >> used to encountering in an intransitive sense in the first place.
> >
> >The net result is the same. Those nouns have reassigned roles.
> 
> Looking at it from a strict grammatical point of view, that's one way
> of interpreting it.  But I'm not feeling a need to view it that way.
> One of the things that my understanding of {-moH} tells me is that the
> object of the verb is *not* really changed.

Hence our disagreement. I'm completely convinced that adding 
{-moH} to a verb has two effects. It adds "causation" to the 
meaning and it reassigns the functions of the subject and the 
objects. The root meaning of the root verb does not change.
 
> >Meanwhile, if something pleases me, I see that as quite
> >different from something causing me to eat. Causation is so
> >imbedded into "pleasing" that I don't even see it as cause, but
> >it is so surficial on "cause to eat" that I can't ignore it.
> 
> I think it's odd that you'd quickly accept {belmoH} as a unit but
> strongly reject {SopmoH}.  It appears this is an expression of the
> transitive/intransitive distinction that is so firm in your internal
> model of Klingon grammar.

What I mean by this is that in English, I identify the verb 
"please" as a kind of personalized stative verb. Something 
pleases me the same way something is beautiful. I say something 
is beautiful, but I really mean it is beautiful TO ME. Others 
might not consider it to be beautiful. Something pleases me. It 
might not please someone else.

The grammar is different for these two English sentences, 
because somehow we have divorced the idea of being beautiful 
from the eye of the beholder, but the one pleased is the direct 
object of the verb "please". It is as if "be beautiful" is the 
intransitive equivalent to "please", since even if I have 
apparent intransitive useage as in, "I seek to please," I 
clearly have an unstated direct object, but I can only introduce 
the observer as an indirect object in "You are beautiful to me."

I see the Klingon {bel} as an alien word to my nature, because 
how can someone simply be pleased? Something has to be the 
source of the pleasure. It is the thing that pleases which has 
the state of pleasing the observer. Klingon instead identifies 
the one pleased as the subject of {bel}, and that is alien to me.

I strongly suspect Okrand did this on purpose.
 
> >> ...I'm
> >> just not convinced that having a {-vaD} and a {-moH} at the same time
> >> *always* has to imply a ditransitive interpretation.
> >
> >Give me an example that will make sense to me.
> 
> I did give you one, but you didn't interpret the way I intended it.
> Have a look:
> 
> >> Hmm.  I really don't see {-moH} affecting an indirect object's function
> >> much at all.  If I say {vavwI'vaD nguv jan}, have I really changed the
> >> role of {vavwI'} when I say {vavwI'vaD nguvmoH jan}?
> >
> >Yes. "The device is stained for my father." "The device causes
> >my father to stain (something)." These two are COMPLETELY
> >different, especially in the role of your father.
> 
> Whoa!  I meant "the device stains for my father."  You picked up on the
> {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} pattern even without a direct object present,
> either explicit or prefix-implied.  I'm very surprised that you managed
> to interpret {vavwI'vaD nguvmoH jan} as if it were {vavwI' nguvmoH jan}.

I know that you are surprised by this. That is the crux of our 
difference in interpreting this. This is the place the 
communication stops.
 
> Let's try another one:  {DuSaQvaD ghojmoH qup}.  I think it has enough
> self-evident context that one would be most likely to interpret it as
> "the elder teaches for the school", and a possible "the elder makes the
> school learn" meaning would be *very* far down on the list of meanings.

And I see it as the ONLY meaning. Then again, it isn't all THAT 
different to interpret that the elder teaches the school, rather 
than that the elder teaches FOR the school. See? I think that is 
the root of Okrand's choice to make the subject of the root verb 
the indirect object of the verb with {-moH}. If you say, "The 
elder teaches the school," that breaks down into "The elder 
causes the school to learn." That is exactly how Okrand showed 
us to do this in his example.

What if this example had no {-vaD}? "The elder causes the school 
to be learned." This is perhaps less of a strech than I 
previously thought from {DuSaQ DoqmoH qup.} "The elder causes 
the school to be red." Perhaps there is a way that stative verbs 
flip around what we interpret to be the verb "to be".

This is an odd, but briefly interesting thought. I don't expect 
you to like it.
 
> How do you interpret {'unvaD qul vItujmoH}?  I can't imagine anyone
> failing to read it as "I heat the fire for the pot."

Because the stative sense already exists for {tuj}, it clearly 
means "I cause the fire to be hot for the pot." Intransitive 
(stative) verbs clearly behave differently. You can't say, "I 
cause the pot to be hot the fire."
 
I never said this grammar applied to intransitive verb roots.

> >If {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} was not an example of new grammar and
> >was merely an ambiguous statement which can be decyphered by
> >context, then how did it even get its "secondary" meaning which
> >we would select from context? What explains an indirect object
> >acting as subject of the root verb? It had never happened before.
> 
> I guess this is just a fundamental disagreement about what the suffix
> {-moH} really means.  I think it changes the meaning of the verb to
> give it a "cause" idea, and you think it rearranges the roles of the
> nouns that would have been there if {-moH} were not present.  There's
> obviously room to disagree here, since we're both pretty good at the
> task of communicating even with our disparate understanding of what's
> really at the root of the grammatical rules and examples we have.

Until we hit this grammar. Then we split into three camps and 
fail to communicate. And none of the camps think there is any 
doubt that that camp alone is correct. There is no vague sense 
that this is perhaps unclear. You think it is clear and Krankor 
and I are wrong. I think it is clear and you and Krankor are 
wrong. Krankor thinks it is clear and you and I are wrong.

I have not heard anyone yet suggest that this is unclear. How 
important is the Skybox example. I think it is essential. 
Krankor thinks it is a mistake and should be completely ignored. 
You think it should be factored in, but not taken to the 
exclusion of the older understanding of the grammar.
 
> >I don't think that there are words that are ditransitive and you
> >can arbitrarily assign one of the objects as direct and the
> >other as indirect and it is just ambiguous and you figure it out
> >from context. I think that is an absurd idea. As much as I think
> >it is wrong, I HOPE it is wrong.
> 
> I see it more as a matter of whether the {-moH}'ed idea captures
> the direct object or not.  It's certainly not just an arbitrary
> one-or-the-other assignment; for one thing, the patterns of the
> two different meanings are quite distinct.  You're taking the
> existence of the ditransitive {qawmoH} example and using it as a
> justification for *never* allowing a {-moH}'ed verb to have a
> simple beneficiary. 

If the verb root is not stative, yes, I agree with that 
statement. If it is stative, I disagree with you because stative 
verbs do not participate in this grammar any more than they 
participate in prefix role reversal when {-lu'} is added.

> I am firmly convinced that there's just no
> reason you should be able to forbid such a construction.

Exactly my point. I'm firmly convinced that there is no reason 
you should be able to interpret it otherwise. Krankor is firmly 
convinced that my interpretation is always wrong and you are 
only right when you agree with his perspective. The three camps 
are all firmly convinced. No doubt anywhere to be seen.

ramtaH'a'?
 
> >Instead, I think that each verb has established relationships
> >with its objects. These are somewhat arbitrary, but they are
> >consistent. That's why it sounds natural to say "Orbit the
> >planet in your ship" and even with English's wildly varying word
> >order, it sounds awkward to say "Orbit your ship around the
> >planet." The word orbit implies "around" as its relationship
> >with its direct object.
> 
> The word "orbit" can also just imply an activity without giving
> an explicit center of motion.  One might orbit for the benefit of
> the local customs officials.  Do you have a problem with using a
> nominally transitive verb having no explicit object in a sentence
> which includes a beneficiary?  Does {SoSwI'vaD jISop} make sense?
> I would hope you understand and accept it.

Without {-moH}, the function of {-vaD} is to provide a 
beneficiary of the action; an indirect object. This example 
doesn't pull in any of this alteration of the roles in order to 
resolve the ditransitivity of {SopmoH}.

Let's say I have a motorcycle I'll call "verb". I'm the subject. 
There's room for the direct object to sit behind me. Okrand 
wanted to deal with "ditransitive" verbs which have two objects, 
and he couldn't figure out how to get a second person on the 
back of the bike. Then he remembered the sidecar; the indirect 
object. He slapped that on the bike and it worked great. Mom 
goes in the sidecar and the girlfriend goes on back. You don't 
really want Mom hugging you, so you don't offer to put Mom on 
the back. Besides, she is more comfortable in the sidecar.

Now, you are trying to use the sidecar for its original 
function, even for a ditransitive. There's no room left. For 
this situation, the sidecar has become Mom's seat. You are not 
going to put a hitchhiker there instead of your Mom.

On a singularly transitive verb, you put hitchhikers in the 
sidecar. It is not Mom's chair in that case.

> We have a verb meaning "play (a musical instrument)" and its object
> is the instrument being played.  Your insistence on there being but
> one legal way to interpret {-vaD} and {-moH} precludes an otherwise
> simple way to say "The emperor made me play something for his children."

Yep. puqpu'Daj belmoHmeH jIHvaD muchmoH ta'. I could see the 
prefix shortcut making this:

puqpu'Daj belmoHmeH mumuchmoH ta'.

> This sentence doesn't ignore the established relationship that {chu'}
> has with its object.  It just uses the root verb in what ought to be
> a perfectly reasonable intransitive way.

I suspect that most times that {chu'} is used with no object, it 
would be interpreted as "be new".
 
> >When we say "Give me the apple," we are not arbitrarily
> >assigning direct and indirect object. We have established rules
> >for determining which is which. I honestly believe that Klingon
> >does the same thing. For {-moH} on transitive verbs, we have
> >only one example of the grammar and I think that prescribes how
> >we should determine what is direct and what is indirect object
> >IN ALL INSTANCES of {-moH} with transitive verbs.
> 
> We have *several* examples of {-moH} on transitive verbs, though
> {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" and {tuQHa'moH} "undress" are a bit
> lacking in explicit detail, and you have apparently chosen to
> dismiss the {maghoSchoHmeHneS'a'} example as wrong.

Certainly I consider it to be confusing. Even if it is spelled 
right.
 
> And I'm very surprised that you would hold up a single example of
> a grammatical construction as an indication of how it should be
> done "IN ALL INSTANCES".

I fully expect you to be surprised. The only way I can resolve 
the example is to take it as a template for how to handle 
ditransive verbs created by adding {-moH} to a transitive verb.
 
> >I also think
> >that given this example, all instances of verbs with {-moH} that
> >have indirect objects should be assumed to be transitive until
> >we are given some sort of example showing how that would work.
> >You still haven't given an example that looks to me like it
> >would work in anything but the grammar this example demonstrates.
> 
> I've given several now.  I hope at least one of them manages to
> show you how my interpretation is possible.

I really wish they worked for me. Then there would be only two 
camps instead of three.
 
> >> The flaw in your argument I see is that you assume that a transitive
> >> verb root can not be used for an intransitive idea, and that {-moH}
> >> on such a verb root necessarily creates a ditransitivity issue.
> >
> >No. That is not accurate. I do not accept (until shown
> >otherwise) that a verb with {-moH} can have an indirect object
> >that is not acting as subject of root verb with a sense of
> >transitivity even if the direct object is unstated and not a
> >point of focus, as is the case with {Sop}. You can't eat without
> >eating SOMETHING, so even as you use {Sop} "intransitively",
> >there is an implication that it actually is transitive with a
> >very vague indifference to what that direct object would be. It
> >is the direct object equivalent to what {-lu'} does to the
> >subject.
> 
> Reading your response, I almost have to laugh.  You begin with the
> words "No. That is not accurate."  You then proceed to explain that
> a transitive verb root can not be used for an intransitive idea if
> there is a {-moH} involved, which is basically what I said was the
> big questionable assumption in your whole argument.

I think this is where we hit the difference between words merely 
used without an obvious, explicit object vs. verbs that are 
stative and cannot under any circumstances take an object. I'm 
not saying that you can't take a potentially transitive verb 
root, add {-moH} and not add an object. What I'm saying is that 
you can't do that and change to use the grammatic template 
appropriate for stative verbs.
 
> I'm still trying to figure out why you think a {-moH} absolutely,
> positively, one hundred percent of the time *has* to intercept any
> {-vaD} as acting as a subject instead of a beneficiary.

Because that is the only way it has ever been shown to behave. 
We make that kind of assumption about {Dub} being transitive. 
Maybe it will be used intransitively someday and we'll learn 
otherwise, but until then, there is only one way we can use it 
and be certain about using it well.
 
> >> >{targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH}...
> >>
> >> I actually read it most literally as "I cause-to-eat the Qa'Hom
> >> for the targ."  The ambiguity comes in when trying to decide if
> >> it should be "I cause-to-eat-the-Qa'Hom for the targ."...
> >
> >You are introducing the infinitive in a way that creates this
> >ambiguity. In earlier, intransitive examples, the grammar made
> >the direct object become subject to the root verb. "I cause the
> >Qa'Hom to eat." In the later transitive example, the role
> >changes for the direct object. The indirect object usurps its
> >earlier function. "I cause the targ to eat the Qa'Hom."
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk.  You're apparently using the English translation of
> a verb with {-moH} as the basis for your refusal to accept what I
> see as a grammatically legal interpretation.

Nope. The fragmented English is ambiguous as to whether {Qa'Hom} 
is doing the eating or being eaten, depending upon where you put 
the hyphens. My whole argument is that there is no justification 
for changing the boundary of "cause-to-eat" such that it does 
not include {Qa'Hom} as the direct object. It is only when you 
do that and use the way English allows word order to be 
unimportant that you can conclude that {Qa'Hom} is doing the 
eating.
 
> Right after the {HIQoymoH} example on page 38, TKD says this:
> | For example, {chenmoH} "he/she makes, creates" could be translated
> | "he/she causes to take shape ({chen} "take form, take shape"), but
> | this is an awkward English phrase.
> 
> I'm not introducing the infinitive arbitrarily.  I'm following what
> I see as the real meaning of the suffix {-moH}.

{chen} is a stative verb. It is not a state we think of in 
English vocabulary, just as in English, unless we use "please" 
as an adjective, as in "I am a pleased citizen", we don't see 
"be pleased" as different from the verb "please" in passive 
voice. But we have the verb {bel}. The boundaries between 
stative and non-stative intransitive are likely not identical 
for English and Klingon.
 
> >By your current description, the indirect object's role never
> >changes. You just have to decide whether or not to include the
> >direct object as a direct object or leave it apart, in which
> >case it magically migrates to the subject of the root verb.
> 
> I'm not seeing the same thing you are with this "migrating noun"
> idea.  I can follow it, and I can see how it makes sense, but I
> don't think it's the best explanation of what's going on.  When
> {-moH} gets added, I don't see it modifying the role of any nearby
> nouns.  I see it modifying the meaning of the verb.  The result is
> pretty much the same in either case:  {yIt} has the person walking
> for a subject, and {yItmoH} has the person walking for an object.
> It's a subtle point, for sure, but I'm not getting the impression
> that {-moH} actually *moved* the subject to the object position.

Even though it did.
 
> >So, by your model, let's go for that non-inclusion of the direct
> >object. "I cause-to-eat the Qa'Hom for the targ." If it is not
> >included as direct object, why not just not include it? "I
> >cause-to-eat for the targ." While we are dropping off optional
> >nouns, let's drop the indirect object as well. "I-cause-to-eat".
> 
> Sure, why not?  "I cause-to-eat" makes sense to me.  Just like
> "I cause-to-learn".  Or "anger excites" -- which is found on page
> 196 of The Klingon Way.

I'm without a response to this. I don't see why it makes all 
that much difference.
 
> >I think I saw one weird example of a verb with {-moH} being used
> >intransitively and it looked like a mistake.
> >
> >TKD p45: maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'
> >
> >I think Okrand just popped a fuse trying to combine suffixes. It
> >is the only intransitive prefix I've ever seen on a verb with
> >{-moH} and I really don't think it works that well.
> 
> First, there's still that {SeymoH QeH} example that you seem to
> keep pretending doesn't exist.  Second, it looks fine to me.

Okay. I think this is the first time I've been reminded of it. I 
accept it. I still think it is odd. There is clearly an 
"indefinite object", which I don't see as identical to "no 
object".
 
> The literal "do we make [something unstated] change to approach, your
> honor?"  is rather rough, certainly.  But the "execute a course change"
> idea absolutely does not mention what is being made to follow a modified
> course.  "We" are not going to change course.  We are going to *cause*
> to alter course (the ship, or the raft, or whatever).

Indefinite object. Not intransitive.
 
> >I really think what is happening is that you are not paying much
> >attention to the relationship between the {Qa'Hom} and the
> >eating. You just hang the noun off to the side and let it slide
> >in whereever it makes the most sense. Is it the subject or the
> >object of the eating? You don't care much. You just let your
> >English property of letting words slide around and let that
> >slide into Klingon.
> 
> Not at all.  I'm explicitly considering that the suffix {-vaD} is
> used to mark the beneficiary of an action.  When there is already
> an object of a verb and {-moH} is applied, I don't think that there
> is any reason for {-moH} to have an affect on the object. 

You seem to believe that it affects the direct object. {qul 
vItujmoH}. Take off the {-moH} and explain what {qul} is doing. 
If you acknowledge that it has a role-shifting function for the 
direct object, why are you so stubborn about not accepting that 
it affects the indirect object? It is not like we have any 
indirect objects applied to verbs with {-moH} before the single 
example that created this rift among experts. I honestly believe 
you have less precedent for your belief than I do.

> When the
> verb has no object and {-moH} is applied, I don't think that there
> is any reason to usurp the beneficiary of the action and say it is
> suddenly what used to be the subject of the verb.

Insofar as canon goes, I don't think there was any such position 
to usurp. This is the only way {-vaD} has ever been used for a 
verb with {-moH}, and certainly for a transitive verb root with 
{-moH}.
 
> >Meanwhile, in Klingon, the subject and object are always
> >defined. Other nouns can come first, especially with Type 5 or
> >Time Stamp references, but the subject and object are generally
> >clear in Klingon. Why do you consider that feature of Klingon to
> >be so unnecessary as soon as one adds {-moH} to a verb?
> 
> I don't understand the question.  I'm *not* trying to muddle the
> roles of subject and object.  I'm also quite explicitly trying to
> keep the role of a noun with a Type 5 suffix clear.  Why do *you*
> consider the beneficiary of an action to change so drastically as
> soon as a {-moH} shows up?

Because it did so in canon. With no exceptions.
 
> . . .
> 
> As for {-lu'}, I certainly agree that I'm assuming some grammatical
> feature that is not described in TKD.  But I'm just assuming that
> one is permitted to use a null prefix when a "no object" is required
> on a {-lu'} verb.  As I said before:
> 
> >> That seems simpler to me than summoning
> >> into existence an exceptional grammatical treatment of intransitive
> >> verbs when the {-lu'} suffix is used.

You are still assuming undescribed grammar. There is no way for 
you to explain your acceptance of this example without assuming 
undescribed grammar.

> >Well, you see, there are rules to this grammar, and that case
> >violated those rules, so I had to make up new rules. So did you,
> >whether you are willing to admit it or not.
> 
> I freely admit that I'm saying something that TKD doesn't address.

Why do you think I'm pressing you to admit more than that. That 
is all I was asking you to admit.

> But my "made up rule" is a whole lot simpler than yours. :-P

If you look at the fine print your subconscious is apparently 
hiding from you, it wouldn't be. You are assuming that it is 
just okay to use the null prefix for intransitive verbs with 
{-lu'}. That means you are disengaging from the stated rule that 
the subject and object roles normally reverse. You can't accept 
the exceptional acceptance of the prefix without tacitly 
accepting the exception to the rule on the reversal of the 
functions of the indicated subject and object for the verb.

> (In case it's not clear, that's a *playful* tongue sticking out,
> not a spiteful one.)

Good.
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI' 'utlh



Back to archive top level