tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 10 09:54:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deep structure
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Deep structure
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:51:43 -0600
I have to agree with charghwI'. I can't see /targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH/
as anything but 'I made the targh eat the Qa'Hom'. It seems to
exactly parallel the canon /ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH/ and the common
(but non-canon?) /ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH/. (Sometimes I find it
easier in involved threads to simply state my opinion, instead
of try to reply to specific points from other posts, so here goes.)
I think two sources of confusion are 1) the idea that a causative
transitive Klingon verb is ditransitive and 2) how the benefactive
role of /-vaD/ fits with the use of /-moH/. The problem with
ditransitivity is that there are two distinct types of object
associated with these ditransitives, which we are not clearly
distinguishing. The problem with /-vaD/ is that the
benefactive doesn't seem related to one of these objects.
Basically, I see /-moH/, besides giving the verb a causative meaning,
as opening up a new noun role to associate with the verb. I also see
noun roles as hierarchical, with subject most common, followed by object.
An intransitive verb with no suffix has only a subject role. When you
add /-moH/ to it, the object role is now available.
/bel yaS/ The officer is pleased.
/yaS belmoH Duj/ The ship pleases the officer.
It's true that a particular noun may move from the subject to the
object role, as /yaS/ did, but the role of subject in general stays
the same: the one which performs the action of the verb.
With a transitive verb, subject and object roles exist: /Qa'Hom vISop/
'I eat a Qa'Hom'. When /-moH/ is added, another noun role is opened up.
Since the object role already exists, this noun gets bumped to a new role.
I don't know the actual name for this role, but I call it the 'ergative
object'. In a simple transitive verb, the subject role indicates the
one performing the verb and the object indicates the one acted upon by
the verb. In a causative transitive, the subject becomes the one which
compells the ergative object to act upon the regular object. The verb
is still initiated by the subject, but it now has two components,
both with their own vectors: the original idea of the action of the
original verb, with a direct object, and the added idea of causation,
with the added ergative object.
We were pretty stumped for a while, because we didn't seem to
have any tools to distinguish the direct object from the ergative
object. Finally, MO gave us the suffix /-vaD/ to mark this,
in the /ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH/ example. I don't think the two
uses of /-vaD/ are that closely related, so it wasn't obvious until MO
pointed it out. Maybe in /no' Hol/ there were two different suffixes,
whose sounds converged over time.
Adding /-moH/ to a verb doesn't change the roles that already exist
for the unsuffixed verb, it just adds a new one. With an intransitive
verb, the subject remains the actor of the verb, but the object role
is added. With a transitive verb, the subject and direct object do
not change roles, but the ergative object role is added. If the direct
object is not present, it does not change this relationship.
/Qa'Hom vISop/ I eat the Qa'Hom
/targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH/ I make the targh eat the Qa'Hom
/targhvaD vISopmoH/ I make the targh eat
/Qa'Hom vISopmoH/ I cause the Qa'Hom to be eaten.
I can't make any sense out of using /-vaD/ with a causative intransitive.
It seems unnecessary. The verb had only a subject, and when /-moH/
was added and a new noun role opened up, that noun was able to act
as the object. There is no other role associated with the verb for
/-vaD/ to be applied to. If a noun with /-vaD/ is present, it must
be understood in it's old benefactive role:
/nguv Duj/ The ship is painted.
/Duj nguvmoH jan/ The device paints the ship.
/vavwI'vaD Duj nguvmoH jan/ The device paints the ship for my father.
/vavwI'vaD nguvmoH jan/ The device paints for my father.
/nguvmoH jan/ The device paints.
The interpretation of the roles of the nouns with the verb should
not change depending on the definition of the verb or on which roles are
filled and which aren't. There's no reason to introduce the sort of relativity
into the use of /-moH/ that some have been suggesting.
-- ter'eS