tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 14 13:19:22 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -moH Curiousity {was Re: deep structures}
ja' peHruS:
>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'}.
You're answering your question by assuming that the entity being made to do
something is the direct object of a verb with {-moH}. Based on quite a lot
of discussion here and the examination of a few examples from TKD and other
sources, that assumption is shaky at best.
>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?
charghwI' and ter'eS have provided compelling arguments that the causation
from {-moH} is applied to a verb's beneficiary, not to its object. With a
transitive verb like {ghoj}, that means the object of the verb is the same
with or without the {-moH}.
-- ghunchu'wI'