tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 13:34:56 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH vs. choHmoH

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On 1/30/2010 3:57 PM, André Müller wrote:
> I like your explanation, I thought of something like this too, but I'm not
> sure if causativized transitive verbs ever worked like this. Such a verb
> needs 3 arguments: the causer, the causee and the final direct object. I
> don't know what strategy Klingon uses to mark the causee and the final
> direct object, let alone the proper word order in such a phrase. I think we
> don't have canon sentences for this...

    tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH
    he wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage (Skybox S20)

In other words

    ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH
    it reminds him of his heritage

More literally, it is "it causes-to-remember his heritage for him." This 
is exactly the point I was making before. {-moH} doesn't change the 
syntax of the verb, only the semantic roles played by the subject and 
object.

Under this grammatical model, there is no *syntactic* difference between 
verbs of action and quality. The only difference is a semantic one. 
Semantically, verbs of quality cannot take objects *unless* the verb of 
quality is being *caused* by the subject, not experienced by it.

    QeH tlhIngan
    the Klingon is angry

    tlhIngan vIQeHmoH
    I cause-to-be-angry the Klingon
    I anger the Klingon

We can use objects on verbs of quality like this because the *meaning* 
of the sentence allows it, not because {verb+moH} is syntactically 
different than {verb}. {-moH} on action verbs do not force a change in 
syntax. The subject of a verb without {-moH} does not "jump" to the 
object position when {-moH} is applied to the verb. "causee verb causer" 
is a semantic formula, not a syntactic one. So if we apply {-moH} to a 
sentence with a verb of action and an object, there is no conflict of 
syntax.

    Hol vIghoj
    I learn the language

    Hol vIghojmoH
    I cause-to-learn the language
    I teach the language

    tera'nganvaD Hol vIghojmoH
    I cause-to-learn the language for the Terran
    I teach the language to the Terran

{-moH} can even be applied to action verbs whose subject and object 
don't undergo any subsequent semantic change:

    He wIghoS
    we follow the course

    He wIghoSmoH
    we cause-to-follow the course
    we follow the course (and this is a change of condition that we
       initiated)

In that example, nothing is said in the former sentence of how long 
we've been following the course or how the course was initiated. In the 
latter sentence the only effect of {-moH} is to make it explicit that we 
caused a change of condition, from not following the course to following 
it. This is the whole point of {-moH}, as defined for us on TKD p. 38. 
"Adding this suffix indicates that the subject is causing a change of 
condition or causing a new condition to come into existence."

> David said that causativized transitive verbs work differently. I haven't
> looked at them again... can't comment on that, but I believe he's right.
> True, {choH} can be ambitransitive/labile (= transitive, or intransitive),
> like many Klingon verbs. But then, that usually means that the verb is
> inherently transitive, and when used intransitively, the direct object is
> simply left out and the subject still stays the agent.
> So, if {choH} is transitive, {He vIchoH} means "I change the course." while
> {jIchoH} would mean "I change" (something unspecified), not in the sense of
> "I undergo a change".

Er, no I didn't say that at all.

> Maybe someone should ask MO? This is a serious issue, not a simple "How do
> you say X in Klingon?" type o' question.:)

It's been an open question for years and years, though my perspective of 
it has changed radically only recently.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level