tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 11 21:59:40 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:59:05 EST
In a message dated 3/11/1999 11:18:56 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< > peqIm. wot {ghojmoH} *direct object* yIngu'! ghojwI'pu' 'oH'a' pagh
> tlhIngan
> Hol 'oH'a'? ghojwI'pu' ghojmoH'a' ghojmoHwI' pagh tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH'a'
> ghojmoHwI'?
>
> peHruS
vuDwIj neH qaja'.
Do'Ha' tlhe'bogh chovnatlhmey rurchu'bogh *canon* mu'tlheghmey'e' DISovbe'
'e'
vIHar.
chovnatlh vIleghchugh: {puq ghojmoH qup},
{puq} 'oH *direct object*'e' 'e' vIwuq.
loQ rur {HIQoymoH!} "Let me hear (something)!" (TKD p. 38).
chovnatlh vIleghchugh: {puqvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH qup},
{tlhIngan Hol} 'oH *direct object*'e' 'e' vIwuq. >>
===============
I answer my own question: I can visualize students being caused to learn; I
cannot visualize a language being caused to learn anything. For this analysis
alone, I would suspect that the best Direct Object of {ghojmoH} is
{ghojwI'pu'}.
If I follow through on the pattern, I get {tlhIngan HolvaD ghojwI'pu' ghojmoH
qup}. But, since we're not doing anything for the benefit of {tlhIngan Hol},
ostensibly, the only way I can see the phrase {tlhIngan HolvaD} fitting into a
sentence like this is if we are allowed to consider it an Indirect Object or
*Second Object. Some folks have talked about ditransitivity. I do not know
if this fits into such a pattern. I just feel that the Direct Object of
{ghojmoH} has to be someone who can be caused to learn.
Comments?
peHruS