[102494] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Sun Nov 22 00:58:48 2015
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmIttI7wI7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:58:21 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
I suspect I just misdirected a reply to SuStel concerning his insight into the ditransitive nature of verbs with {-moH}. I've also had further thought on the topic.
Apparently, according to canon, an unmarked noun before a verb with {-moH} can either be the object of causation (the subject of the root verb -- the one caused to perform the action of the verb) or it can be the direct object of the root verb (the target of the action of the verb). I can teach Worf (the object of causation of learning). I can teach Klingon language (the object of learning). You know that cause-to-learn means Worf is caused to learn and you know Klingon language is learned.
But if it's okay to be that kind of vague with a verb that makes it clear who is learning and what is being learned, where do we draw the line with a verb and nouns that could function in either role?
If I cause hitting and Sam and Fred are involved and you don't otherwise know who hit whom, and I say {*Sam* vIqIpmoH}, then is Sam the object of causation, and I caused him to hit Fred, or is Sam the object of the root verb and I caused Fred to hit Sam?
We had a problem like this with relative clauses which we resolved by adding {-'e'} to the head noun if the verb with {-bogh} had both a subject and an object. Is there a way to clarify this stupidly vague mess that verbs with {-moH} have been revealed in canon to be?
Sent from my iPod
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
