tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 17:02:15 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 6:25 PM, André Müller wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I read through it and everything makes sense. Up
> to the part with {ghoj}:
> 2010/1/30 David Trimboli<[email protected]>
>
>> [...]
>
>     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
>>
>>
> This is logically deductable from what you wrote beforehand and from the
> canonical heritage-sentence. A problem here might be the single(?) canon
> sentence that we have for {ghojmoH}:
>
> batlh qaghojmoHpu'.
> «It has been an honor to instruct you.»
>
> I didn't write down the source, perhaps it's from KCD or the audio course...
>
> Here, the direct object of the verb {ghojmoH} is not the object being taught
> but the recipient of the action. Can this be explained away by the prefix
> trick? Or what do you suggest?

Yes, I brought this up the last time I talked about this topic. The 
prefix trick would explain it. After all, there is no direct object in 
the sentence, only a verb prefix which indicates some kind of object. We 
know that the prefix trick can sometimes allow prefixes to indicate 
unstated indirect objects instead of direct objects.

>> {-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."
>>
>>
> Although this seems odd, it logically follows indeed.
>
> In the upper example, with "remember", the {-moH} turns the verb into "cause
> to be remembered", and the "by..." part can be added with {-vaD}.
> Here, the likewise transitive verb "follow" would become "cause to be
> followed (by)". So {He wIghoSmoH} means "We cause the course to be
> followed.". This should indeed be grammatical in Klingon, but I would
> definitely avoid such phrases.
 >
> One might even add "maHvaD" in front, to form something literally meaning
> "We cause the course to be followed by us."

I think you're thinking more about the English (passive) translation 
than the Klingon original. There is no "by" implied in the Klingon.

> This is odd. I'd rather use other means to show the subtle semantic
> difference between this sentence and the usual {He wIghoS}. Do you agree?
>
> Oh, wait! In the sentence {He wIghoS}, it's clear that the speakers are
> following the course, i.e. "we".
> In {He wIghoSmoH}, the "we" are the ones who cause the course to be followed
> but the sentence doesn't overtly express, who will follow the course.
> Technically, someone else entirely could follow the course, and if one wants
> to express that, one might even add {SoHvaD} to the front, hence: "We cause
> the course to be followed by you.", or less literally: "We send you on the
> course."

Yes, although the noun with {-vaD} had better actually be a beneficiary 
of the action to use that suffix.

Let's simplify this.

    maghoS
    we go

    maghoSmoH
    we cause a change of condition from not going to going, but exactly
    who is going is not specified
    "we make (something) go"

    yuQ wIghoS
    we go to the planet

    yuQ wIghoSmoH
    we cause a change of condition from not going to going, and the
    going is acting on the planet
    "we make "something" go to the planet"

    jagh DaHIv
    you attack the enemy

    jagh DaHIvmoH
    you cause a change of condition from not attacking to attacking, and
    the attacking is happening on the enemy
    "you make (someone) attack the enemy"

    HoDvaD jagh DaHIvmoH
    you cause a change of condition from not attacking to attacking;
    the attacking is happening on the enemy, for the benefit of the
    captain
    "you make (someone) attack the enemy for the captain"

    Hol Daghoj
    you learn the language

    Hol DaghojmoH
    you cause a change of condition from not learning to learning; the
    learning is happening on the language
    "you make (someone) learn the language"
    "you teach the language"

Frankly, our traditional rule of "subject causes direct object to do 
verb" is nowhere stated by Okrand, and some examples contradict it. It 
may very well be a rule that we invented for ourselves, but is not what 
Okrand had in mind.

> I meant specifically about the {choH} thing.
> We have two parallel {choH} sentences, and when I remove the unnecessary
> stuff, we have:
>
> He yIchoH! = Alter the course!
> He yIchoHmoH! = Alter the course!
>
> The last sentence would then literally be "Cause the course to be altered.",
> in German this could be "Lass [jemanden] den Kurs ändern!" (Let [so.] change
> the course!), and even "Ich lasse [jemanden] Klingonisch lernen." (I let
> [so.] learn Klingon.). The true agent who alters the course is not stated,
> in the context it could be the engines or an engineer.
>
> But then
>
> That would indeed make very much sense. If I got you right, I have to add
> some explanation to my dictionary now.

That does sound like what I am saying. But don't annotate your 
dictionary just yet—I'm not an authority, and I haven't even entirely 
convinced myself yet that this is what's going on.

> One more question:
> lay'tel SIvten / Morpheme Addict said that {choH} for him is clearly
> intransitive. The two sentences we have with the verb clearly show that it
> can't be intransitive (only), because it doesn't have the meaning "undergo a
> change", but only "change something". So the verb is at least agentive, and
> stays that way even if one uses a no-object prefix. Hence, {jIchoH} means
> that I change something else in general, and not that I undergo any change
> myself. Right?
> For a true intransitive verb meaning "undergo a change", maybe {moj}
> (become) might be the best option.

I think lay'tel SIvten may not be seeing the whole picture here. He is 
correctly explaining it the way he learned it, but I don't think he 
quite grasps the reasoning behind this argument. It's also entirely 
possible that {choH} *does* have two senses, like some other Klingon verbs.

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

Back to archive top level