[102508] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sun Nov 22 06:51:48 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:51:32 +1000
In-Reply-To: <56515C55.4000202@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7300919543704393094==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_4ad1e602-5358-486c-a85c-d408a1af3315_"
--_4ad1e602-5358-486c-a85c-d408a1af3315_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' SuStel=2C jatlh:
> TKD is very consistent with its use of the word "object" instead of the=20
> phrase "direct object." It only starts to make this distinction when the=
=20
> idea of using {-vaD} to mark an indirect object is brought up in the=20
> addendum.
To be fair=2C of course it doesn't. Given that a second class of "object" d=
idn't appear until the TKD addendum=2C I'm not surprised that the body of T=
KD would simply refer to the direct object as the "object"=2C even if it di=
d intend to refer specifically to the direct object. Before the addendum=2C=
there wasn't any need to split "objects" up into sub-types.
ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C jatlh:
> It=92s easier with {ghoj} because a person usually learns=2C and a
> language or some other topic is usually learned=2C but what if you have
> something like {SuvI=92 qIpmoH ra=92wI=92}? Is the warrior being caused t=
o
> hit=2C or is someone else being caused to hit him?
jang SuStel=2C jatlh:
> {ra'wI'} is the causer=97the {-moH} suffix tells us that. Since the prefi=
x
> trick doesn't work for third-person objects=2C {SuvwI'} MUST be the agent=
.
> {SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'} can only mean "the commander made the warrior hit
> (someone)."
This is further supported by S31=2C where we see exactly this kind of causa=
tive construction:
Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey
"[The howl] serves to warn the other dead" (S31)
The object of {ghuH} is the patient: the thing prepared for (from the gloss=
"prepare for=2C be alerted to"). But the syntactic object in the S31 sente=
nce=2C the object of {ghuHmoH}=2C is *not* the patient=2C the thing prepare=
d for. Instead=2C it's the beneficiary=2C or causee=2C if I can use that te=
rm: those who are being alerted. It's what one would have expected in the {=
-vaD} role if one were to base the pattern on the {Ha'quj} sentence from S2=
0.
However=2C this does raise the question of how you express "the commander c=
aused (someone unspecified) to hit the warrior". Would it have to be periph=
rastic=2C as {vay'vaD SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Or can there not be an unspeci=
fied causee=2C left out of the verbal agreement structure entirely? Are you=
arguing that such causee-omission is impossible in causatives like {SuvwI'=
qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Because the same type of causee-omission is quite feasible=
for causatives of monovalent verbs: {SeymoH QeH} "anger excites" (TKW p.19=
6). Why would it not be permissible for polyvalent verbs too=2C thus yieldi=
ng a reading of "the commander made (someone) hit the warrior"? I don't see=
any satisfactory explanation=2C especially since the possibility of causee=
-omission also resolves ever-resurfacing issues with {tuQmoH}. Examples lik=
e {may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH} "put on your finest armour" (paq'batlh: paq'ra=
D 21.8) can't be easily explained any other way.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_4ad1e602-5358-486c-a85c-d408a1af3315_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' SuStel=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B TKD is very consistent with its use of the word "object" instead of th=
e <br><div>>=3B phrase "direct object." It only starts to make this disti=
nction when the <br>>=3B idea of using {-vaD} to mark an indirect object =
is brought up in the <br>>=3B addendum.<br><br>To be fair=2C of course it=
doesn't. Given that a second class of "object" didn't appear until the TKD=
addendum=2C I'm not surprised that the body of TKD would simply refer to t=
he direct object as the "object"=2C even if it did intend to refer specific=
ally to the direct object. Before the addendum=2C there wasn't any need to =
split "objects" up into sub-types.<br><br>ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C ja=
tlh:<br>>=3B It=92s easier with {ghoj} because a person usually learns=2C=
and a<br>>=3B language or some other topic is usually learned=2C but wha=
t if you have<br>>=3B something like {SuvI=92 qIpmoH ra=92wI=92}? Is the =
warrior being caused to<br>>=3B hit=2C or is someone else being caused to=
hit him?<br><br>jang SuStel=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B {ra'wI'} is the causer=97t=
he {-moH} suffix tells us that. Since the prefix<br>>=3B trick doesn't wo=
rk for third-person objects=2C {SuvwI'} MUST be the agent.<br>>=3B {SuvwI=
' qIpmoH ra'wI'} can only mean "the commander made the warrior hit<br>>=
=3B (someone)."<br><br>This is further supported by S31=2C where we see exa=
ctly this kind of causative construction:<br><br>Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHm=
oH bey<br>"[The howl] serves to warn the other dead" (S31)<br><br>The objec=
t of {ghuH} is the patient: the thing prepared for (from the gloss "prepare=
for=2C be alerted to"). But the syntactic object in the S31 sentence=2C th=
e object of {ghuHmoH}=2C is *not* the patient=2C the thing prepared for. In=
stead=2C it's the beneficiary=2C or causee=2C if I can use that term: those=
who are being alerted. It's what one would have expected in the {-vaD} rol=
e if one were to base the pattern on the {Ha'quj} sentence from S20.<br><br=
>However=2C this does raise the question of how you express "the commander =
caused (someone unspecified) to hit the warrior". Would it have to be perip=
hrastic=2C as {vay'vaD SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Or can there not be an unspec=
ified causee=2C left out of the verbal agreement structure entirely? Are yo=
u arguing that such causee-omission is impossible in causatives like {SuvwI=
' qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Because the same type of causee-omission is quite feasibl=
e for causatives of monovalent verbs: {SeymoH QeH} "anger excites" (TKW p.1=
96). Why would it not be permissible for polyvalent verbs too=2C thus yield=
ing a reading of "the commander made (someone) hit the warrior"? I don't se=
e any satisfactory explanation=2C especially since the possibility of cause=
e-omission also resolves ever-resurfacing issues with {tuQmoH}. Examples li=
ke {may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH} "put on your finest armour" (paq'batlh: paq'r=
aD 21.8) can't be easily explained any other way.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div=
> </div></body>
</html>=
--_4ad1e602-5358-486c-a85c-d408a1af3315_--
--===============7300919543704393094==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7300919543704393094==--
