[102525] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Mon Nov 23 00:42:13 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:41:54 +1000
In-Reply-To: <273B7ACC-BBC5-45D7-AD17-DC91A3525A98@gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============2888896725752792287==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_0a9e4636-971f-42c7-ab2c-948e74e300b7_"
--_0a9e4636-971f-42c7-ab2c-948e74e300b7_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' De'vID=2C jatlh:
> Can one say {quv maja'chuq}?
> What about {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}?
jang lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C jatlh:
> I=92m pretty sure we=92ve never had an example of an explicit direct obje=
ct
> in a sentence with a prefix that indicates no direct object.
I know of none either=2C and I'd make substantial bets that we will never=
=2C ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the r=
elationships of the nouns in the sentence to the verb and to each other=2C =
and I think this interchange from the interview with Marc in HQ 7.4 is appo=
site here:
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}.=
The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along i=
n someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say {bIQ=
tIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point=2C {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.
The implication of these latter two remarks is that if there's no object re=
ference in the pronominal prefix=2C then whatever noun precedes it cannot b=
e the direct object. It's a disconnection in the rule of {rom}.
In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no=2C I would say that both =
of these are categorically impossible. Both of them would require the prono=
minal prefix {wI-}=2C at least. We know from paq'batlh that {ja'chuq} has b=
ecome lexified with the meaning "discuss" and can take an object: {quv HIja=
'chuqQo'} "do not discuss honour with me" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 19.12)=2C so =
{quv wIja'chuq} is grammatical.
And I think I'd tentatively accept {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} for "we cause each=
other to remember our mission"=2C though it does set off my spider senses.=
Because it seems an explicit causee of a {-moH}-marked bivalent verb shoul=
d be a {-vaD}-marked header if a direct object is present (cf. S20)=2C I ha=
ve trouble with the idea that {-chuq} can=2C as it were=2C reach down into =
the indirect object slot in the causative when it can't normally do so when=
the causative isn't present. But I certainly don't pretend to have thought=
that one all the way through and I'm not even sure that the way I'm thinki=
ng about it is correct. I'll need to muse on that for a while.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_0a9e4636-971f-42c7-ab2c-948e74e300b7_
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' De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B Can one say {quv maja'chuq}?<br>>=3B What about {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH=
}?<br><br>jang lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B I=92m pretty sure we=
=92ve never had an example of an explicit direct object<br>>=3B in a sent=
ence with a prefix that indicates no direct object.<br><br>I know of none e=
ither=2C and I'd make substantial bets that we will never=2C ever see that.=
Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the relationships of th=
e nouns in the sentence to the verb and to each other=2C and I think this i=
nterchange from the interview with Marc in HQ 7.4 is apposite here:<br><br>=
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}.=
The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along i=
n someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say {bIQ=
tIq jIjaH}.<br>WM: At that point=2C {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentenc=
e.<br>MO: Right.<br><br>The implication of these latter two remarks is that=
if there's no object reference in the pronominal prefix=2C then whatever n=
oun precedes it cannot be the direct object. It's a disconnection in the ru=
le of {rom}.<br><br>In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no=2C I =
would say that both of these are categorically impossible. Both of them wou=
ld require the pronominal prefix {wI-}=2C at least. We know from paq'batlh =
that {ja'chuq} has become lexified with the meaning "discuss" and can take =
an object: {quv HIja'chuqQo'} "do not discuss honour with me" (paq'batlh: p=
aq'raD 19.12)=2C so {quv wIja'chuq} is grammatical.<br><br>And I think I'd =
tentatively accept {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} for "we cause each other to rememb=
er our mission"=2C though it does set off my spider senses. Because it seem=
s an explicit causee of a {-moH}-marked bivalent verb should be a {-vaD}-ma=
rked header if a direct object is present (cf. S20)=2C I have trouble with =
the idea that {-chuq} can=2C as it were=2C reach down into the indirect obj=
ect slot in the causative when it can't normally do so when the causative i=
sn't present. But I certainly don't pretend to have thought that one all th=
e way through and I'm not even sure that the way I'm thinking about it is c=
orrect. I'll need to muse on that for a while.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br> =
</div></body>
</html>=
--_0a9e4636-971f-42c7-ab2c-948e74e300b7_--
--===============2888896725752792287==
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
--===============2888896725752792287==--
