tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 07:44:41 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}

Well said, though we disagree on preferences.

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:09:00 -0800 (PST) [email protected] 
wrote:

> Probably we all agree on the causative cases with all three grammatical roles
> filled:
> 
> /puqvaD Hol vIghojmoH/    "I teach the child the language."
> 
> No serious alternative to this has been proposed.
> The questions concern the case with only two roles filled, the missing one
> being the subject matter learned:   "I teach the child."
> 
> ter'eS:
> > Here is my reasoning: in the simple sentence /Hol ghoj puq/, the language
> > is the object of /ghoj/; it is the thing being learned.  Adding /-moH/ to
> > the verb doesn't change this; the object of /ghoj/ remains the thing
> > being "caused to be learned".  The object doesn't change to the person
> > being "caused to learn".  To express that new role, MO has shown us that
> > we must use the suffix /-vaD/: /puqvaD Hol ghojmoH qup/.  These
> > relationships hold true even if the direct object isn't expressed:
> > /puqvaD ghojmoH qup/ 'The elder teaches the child'.
> 
> vuDvam vIyajchu'.   
> 
> Now in the last example, /puqvaD ghojmoH qup/, the explicit direct object (the
> information taught) is omitted.   But it might as well be present, since the
> prefix for third person subject and third person direct object would be zero,
> the same as for third person subject and no direct object.  It reads as "The
> elder teaches it to the child."   So this isn't an example of the two-role
> case in question.
> 
> Are there examples in canon of this construction with no subject-matter direct
> object at all, even implicit in the prefix?  To do that we can use a first- or
> second-person subject.  We can avoid the "prefix trick" issue by keeping the
> learner object third person.  That gives:
> 
> ?{puqvaD bIghojmoH}  "You teach the child."
> I certainly hope this doesn't turn out to be the answer!!
> 
> or the alternative suggestion, 
> ?{puq DaghojmoH}    "You teach the child."
> I much prefer this.

But what if you wanted to say "I teach linguistics."?

1. HolQeD vIghojmoH.

2. ?puq vIghojmoH.

3. puqvaD jIghojmoH.

See? 3 would be a lot clearer than 2.
  
> --jey'el	

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level