tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 11:02:45 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}

mujang charghwI' 'utlh:

> 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.
  
maQoch.   I don't see it as clearer, without further context.   "I teach for
(the benefit of) the child."   It seems similar to the following examples
(nothing canon; I just made them up):

?DuSaQ SumvaD jIghojmoH.  "I teach for the nearby school."
?qumvaD jIghojmoH.   "I teach for the government."

When I answered the earlier question from peHruS, I said 

> chovnatlh vIleghchugh: {puq ghojmoH qup}, 
>     {puq} 'oH *direct object*'e' 'e' vIwuq. 

I guess no one noticed the subjunctive and conditional there: "If I should see
the example ... I would decide ..."  :-):-) :-)     Well, I haven't seen the
example, except in these discussions.  As a sentence with no context, it
strikes others differently.

wa' ghopDaq, jang ter'eS:

> I understand your first example, /puq ghojmoH qup/ as 'The elder causes
(> someone) to learn the child'.  /puq/ stands in DO position, but is not
> a sensible object of /ghojmoH/.    

'ach latlh ghopDaq:

>  I just feel that the Direct Object of
>  {ghojmoH} has to be someone who can be caused to learn.
>  ...
>  peHruS

I also feel that the latter would be simpler, but I'm too cautious to think
it's necessarily what any language, real or invented, in fact does.
Naturally I would like above all to see canon examples that clarify these
things authoritatively.   I'm not trying to impose anything of my own here.   

Also, I know that it probably looks as if I'm just imitating English usage for
"teach": taking either information or learner as direct object.   But English
is far from the only DIvI' Hol that can promote a beneficiary to the primary
object function and form, especially if a notional "patient" -- what the
action is done *to*, not *for* -- is absent.   (There's an analogy here with
the difference between nominative/accusative systems and ergative/absolutive
systems.  This and a lot more can be found in the work I cited earlier: F. R.
Palmer's "Grammatical Roles and Relations.")   

Possibly tlhIngan Hol behaves like that, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- the
"prefix trick" is another example.   There too the personal indirect object is
promoted to the form and function normally devoted to the direct object.   

--jey'el

Back to archive top level