tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 16:02:42 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: choH vs. choHmoH

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) 

   tera'nganvaD Hol vIghojmoH
   I cause-to-learn the language for the Terran
   I teach the language to the Terran
Since {-moH} is 'cause to', I think it should be split to properly render it
into English: this would be "I cause the language to learn", which is not "I
teach the language (to someone)".
I think it should be {tera'ngan vIghojmoH} (I teach the Terran). To include
what the Terran learns, use {-meH}:

   tlhIngan Hol ghojmeH tera'ngan vIghojmoH.

Whether {tera'ngan} is subject of the first clause or object of the second
is not clear.

lay'tel SIvten

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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