tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 11 15:37:19 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:36:38 -0600
At 02:00 PM 3/11/99 -0800, HomDoq wrote:
>
>ter'eS,
>
>let me see, if I understand clearly...
>according to your analysis the following two statements are true:
>
>a) to translate "She causes me to <Verb>" one must use either
> i) mu-<Verb>-moH OR
> ii) jIHvaD <Verb>-moH
> and we have to learn, which verb goes which way.
>
As I understand them, i) and ii) are equivalent. They mean exactly
the same thing, and I would assume that any verb that works for ii)
will also work for i).
>b) i) if a verb that follows the mu-<Verb>-moH pattern is preceded
> by <Noun>-vaD, the noun must be the beneficiary of the root verb
Right, if you mean "beneficiary of the causation", and with the caveat
that I don't think any verb is obliged to follow this pattern and can't
be used with the other pattern.
> ii) if a verb that follows the other pattern is preceded by <Noun>-vaD
> the noun is the beneficiary of the root verb if -moH is not present
> and the beneficiary of the causation (i.e. the subject of the root
> verb) if -moH is present.
>
Right.
>qar'a'?
I don't think it is the verb that determines whether you use i) or
ii). I really don't know what would lead a Klingon to choose one form
over the other. I sometimes think that the prefix trick is more "slangy"
than the full version, but I guess we really don't know in what contexts
Klingons use it. But I'm pretty sure it's not the verb that determines it.
Let me put this whole thing another way:
A noun with /-vaD/ and
1. Any verb without /-moH/: the noun is the regular beneficiary/indirect object
(in your words, "beneficiary of the root verb").
2. An intransitive verb with /-moH/: the noun is still the regular indirect
object.
3. A transitive verb with /-moH/: the noun is the "beneficiary of the
causation",
or the object which is compelled by the subject to perform the verb.
For 2. and 3., the prefix trick can be used to replace /jIHvaD/ or /SoHvaD/.
This
doesn't change them into direct objects; they are still the beneficiaries.
This is
just a short-hand way to refer to them.
None of this is official, of course; just my own opinion.
-- ter'eS