tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 13:47:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:17:24 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> jIja'pu':
> >> verghDaq lupDujHom jormoHmeH ghoqwI', Se' SeHlaw chu'.
> >>
> >> Where did the explosion take place? Where was the spy when it happened?
> >> I think this sentence supports the interpretation that the spy blew up
> >> the shuttlecraft by remote control and he was probably nowhere near the
> >> shuttlebay at the time.
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >I think this is a remnant of the oddness of verbs with {-moH}.
> >There are two actions here. One is causation. One is explosion.
> >The action of exploding occurs where the subject of that action
> >explodes, which is on the dock. It doesn't look like the subject
> >here because of {-moH}, but the subject of the action of
> >exploding is definitely {lupDujHom}.
>
> Okay, we've reached the point where further debate is not productive.
> You maintain that {-moH} changes objects into subjects, which I don't
> accept at all. From my point of view, this is the kind of linguistic
> sleight-of-hand that you so often accuse me of. When faced with an
> example that contradicts your position, you appear to have redefined
> the example with a wave of your hand. :-)
Okay, let's look at your example again. You ask where the
exploding happens, not where the causation of the exploding
happens. You are the one with the slight of hand. I was
misdirected by your English description of the nature of your
example. The spy is not the subject of the explosion. He's the
subject of the causation of the explosion. That's what I was
focussing my arguement on, because you picked an example using
{-moH} and then started talking about the action described by
the root verb {jor} with no reference to what {-moH} does to the
subject and object of a root verb.
If you want to say that {verghDaq} is the location of the root
verb action {jor}, then the subject of that action is clearly
{lupDujHom}, not {joqwI'}. You didn't say, "Where did the
causation of the explosion take place?" You said, "Where did the
explosion take place?" If {verghDaq} is supposed to indicate
where the explosion takes place and not where the causation of
the explosion takes place, and you are trying to dodge the
effect of using {-moH} on the verb, then YOU are DEFINITELY
doing lots of slight of hand, whether it is intentional or not.
So, I put it back in your court. If the effect of {-moH} is so
incidental that it doesn't deserve attention, show me an example
that wins your case without using {-moH}. I simply dare you.
> You: "Locatives invariably apply to the subject."
> Me: "Look at this one! The locative obviously applies to the object."
> You: "That's not the object. {-moH} turned it into a subject."
You are editing out the focus on the action of the root verb.
Your summary is particularly misleading. You ask about where an
explosion takes place: jor lupDujHom. lupDujHom jormoH ghoqwI'.
You want to say that adding {-moH} isn't changing the
grammatical role of {lupDujHom}. I think you are off your nut
for the sake of a lame argument.
> We'll have to disagree peacefully on this one, at least until someone
> else manages to convince one of us to switch sides.
Nice try at distorting my argument until I sound unreasonable
and quickly declaring yourself to have the last word. These are
not the tactics of an honorable participant in a discussion
seeking anything like truth or understanding.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh