tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 14:57:43 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}

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 13:05:31 -0800 (PST) Terry Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> jey'el wrote:
> > 
> > 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):

I'd still argue that the slot for the [direct object of 
causation/subject of the root verb] for this verb, since it 
can take direct objects, is the indirect object slot indictated 
by {-vaD}. I don't care that you translate it as "teach". To me, 
it is still "make learn". The one doing the learning is the 
indirect object. The thing being learned is the direct object. 
The word "teach" in the definition is just a tag to help us look 
it up. It is not a separate word from "make learn".

The ONLY confirmed example of a word which is genuinely changed 
into a new root verb by adding a suffix is {lo'laH}, and the 
whole reason for that is Okrand used it adjectivally, and we all 
know that {-laH} is not allowed on an adjectival verb. So, 
Okrand declared {lo'laH} a separate root verb. That doesn't mean 
that there is a perfectly homophonous {lo'laH} which still means 
"he can use it". It just means that there is a word spelled 
{lo'laH} which is NOT the same word as {lo'+laH}.

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

"I cause the nearby school to learn."

> > ?qumvaD jIghojmoH.   "I teach for the government."

"I cause the government to learn."

> I'm wondering if we're making too much of one verb. 

I do believe that YOU are. For me, it is just {ghoj+moH} with 
"teach" added to the definition list as a tag to help us look it 
up. It is as close to the word "teach" as Klingon gets, though 
it really means "cause to learn". It does not mean "teach" 
except as much as "teach" coincidentally means "cause to learn". 
Any place the definitions of "teach" don't match "cause to 
learn", {ghojmoH} will fail to work. I don't force literal 
translations into "make learn" just because in most cases 
"teach" and "make learn" mean the same thing, hence the 
definition tag.

> It may well be that 
> /ghoj/ and /ghojmoH/ have different objects, but that this is not
> necessarily 
> true of other verbs when /-moH/ is added.  We know that some of the
> words in 
> TKD and KGT which appear to be made of a common verb plus suffix are in
> fact 
> an entirely differnt verb (eg. /lo'laH/). 

See above. Okrand has explicitly said that this is the only 
confirmed example of an apparent verb plus suffix actually being 
a separate verb root. Others may arise, but he has not 
discovered them yet.

> Maybe /ghoj/ and /ghojmoH/
> are the 
> same sort of thing. 

I am very nearly certain that this is NOT the case. If you 
wanted to say, "I am ready to teach Linguistics", where would 
you place {-rup}? That is what we asked Okrand and he explained 
that with strange exceptions of specific odd circumstances, it 
would have to be {HolQeD vIghojrupmoH}.

> Or maybe a common error has gotten relexified: I
> know
> actual people who use 'learn' to mean 'teach' (as in "I'll learn you to 
> sass your elders").  Maybe this happened with /ghoj/.

I doubt it.
 
> I'm proposing (and hoping) that for the majority of verbs, adding /-moH/
> has the regular and predictable result of adding a new noun role to the
> verb without changing any of the old ones, but I am certainly open to
> the
> idea that some verbs are exceptions to the rule (of course, if there
> turn
> out to be more exceptions than not, I'll have to trash the rule!).

I think you had an excellent analysis of general verbs with 
{-moH} and then stumbled over the definition tag "teach" and 
mistook it for a synonym for "make learn" which would be easier 
to look up than "make learn". If you wanted to say, "I teach 
linguistics", would you look it up under "M" for "make learn" or 
"c" for "cause to learn"? No. You'd look under "T" for "teach". 
That's why "teach" is in TKD at all, since there is no root verb 
meaning "teach".
 
> -- ter'eS

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level