[85069"] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: A fun application of the "prefix trick"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Wed Sep 17 21:44:13 2008
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A67EF24D072E@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:42:55 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> ter'es:
>> So, I settled on {juH vIvu'meH mughojmoH SoS}.
> As opposed to the problematic ?{juH vIvu' 'e' mughojmoH SoS} "I
> manage the house. Mother teaches me that."
That's not merely problematic. Even granting the grammar, it's
totally wrong for the idea. You don't want to say "Mother teaches me
*that* [I do X]." You want to say "Mother teaches me *the way to*
[do X]."
But I don't grant the grammar, and I think ter'eS translated it
absolutely perfectly.
On Sep 17, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> For the beginners on the list, part of the problem is that we have
> so few examples in canon:
>
> {ghoj} "learn":
>
> qa'vam yuQ Quv DaghojmeH Duyma'vaD yIjatlh.
> [To learn the Genesis Planet's coordinates, speak to our agent.]
> (ST3 DVD case [text by Okrand?])
>
> {ghojmoH} "teach, instruct":
>
> batlh qaghojmoHpu'
> It has been an honor to instruct you. (CK)
>
> batlh qaghojmoH
> It has been an honor to instruct you. (PK)
These few examples do clearly use a prefix showing the person being
taught, not the thing being learned, as the object of {ghojmoH}.
They also indirectly give a resolution to the problem by translating
it as "instruct" rather than as "teach".
On Sep 17, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Doq wrote:
> For all new students of the Klingon language, please note that there
> is not a single instance of canon or any description from Okrand that
> suggests that when you add {-moH} to a verb, it doesn't change the
> direct object of the verb. This is wholly Ter'eS's idea. Maybe he has
> convinced someone else here as well. If so, I'm sure we'll hear from
> them.
There actually *is* an "instance of canon" that shows the direct
object of a verb with {-moH} being the same as the verb without {-moH}.
Skybox Card S20, {Ha'quj} "Klingon™ Sash":
> qorDu'Daj tuq 'oS Ha'quje'e' tuQbogh wo'rIv. tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD
> quHDaj qawmoH.
> The sash that Worf™ wears is a symbol of his family's house. He
> wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage.
Note the sentence {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH} "It causes to remember his
heritage [history?] for him." It certainly suggests what you
attribute wholly to ter'eS.
I also think the {tuQ}/{tuQmoH} entries in the dictionary suggest the
same thing, but it's not nearly as straightforward an example as S20
is. But based on the existing canon, I believe there's room for a
descriptive theory going something like this:
1: {-moH} doesn't change the object of a verb.
2: The entity being caused to perform the verb is the grammatical
beneficiary of the verb with {-moH}.
3: The "prefix trick" is almost always used along with {-moH} to
refer to the beneficiary as if it were the grammatical object.
So even though I've taken the discussion quite far from the original
post, the Subject line is still appropriate. :)
-- ghunchu'wI'
