tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 17 13:58:05 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: A fun application of the "prefix trick"

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

--- On Wed, 9/17/08, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> This isn't the prefix trick. That's when the prefix
> of a verb refers to
> an unstated, pronomial indirect object (dative case)
> instead of a direct
> object (accusative
> case).
> 
>    "The captain gave me the knife."
>    Normal: jIHvaD taj nob HoD.
>    Prefix trick: taj munob HoD.
> 
> The object of {ghoj} is the thing learned, but the object
> of {ghojmoH}
> is the person taught. Therefore, {jIH mughojmoH SoS} is a
> perfectly
> normal sentence. You just elided the pronoun.
> 

Not that I want to re-start an old argument, but you say "the object of {ghojmoH} is the person taught" as if this is a settled thing, while I do not recall any definitive rule about what happens with {-moH} and transitive verbs.  I personally believe that the object of the unsuffixed verb remains the object of the suffixed verb, and the causee is marked with {-vaD}: {Hol vIghoj} -> {jIHvaD Hol ghojmoH SoS}, and I will believe that until Okrand says explicitly "No".

As I say, I _don't_ want to restart an old argument; I am agreeable to disagreeing.  My only point was that by wording it as I did, I avoided the issue all together, since the {mu-} could refer to {jIH} as object OR beneficiary.

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level