tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 12 20:37:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
I think you are confusing my post with jey'el's. I didn't
bring up all these /ghoj/ problems. I stand by my original
post in this thread. I was just responding to what I saw
as too much emphasis on disputing how a particular verb
fit into the pattern.
ghItlh charghwI':
>
> 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):
>
The above is from jey'el, not me (ter'eS).
> 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".
>
I (ter'eS) agree.
> 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.
Everything from this point on is from me.
>
> I do believe that YOU are. For me, it is just {ghoj+moH} with
If by "YOU" you don't mean me 8+).
> "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.
>
I agree completely.
> > 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/).
>
I wanted to concede the possibility that /ghojmoH/ has as its object the
person being taught, after I saw the /batlh qaghojmoH/ example from
another post.
> 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}.
>
This example to me clinches my argument: the object of /ghoj/ and
/ghojmoH/ is the topic being studied.
> > 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.
Really, I do too.
>
> > 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".
>
Again you are confusing the posters. I understand /ghoj/ and /ghojmoH/
exactly as you described them above. I was just trying to point out
that even if it turns out that they happen to change their objects (as
in
jey'el's examples), it wouldn't invalidate the general analysis.
-- ter'eS