[102558] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Mon Nov 23 17:08:01 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAFgJOr0oHQrwnZ-9pQYz13D708vLiAm-tX06XVfVgUuewzObmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 23:07:44 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============1339183289549127281==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11411d16689c9a05253c7430
--001a11411d16689c9a05253c7430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
bI'reng, I don't know if you have already read as far as my response to the
issue, but it seems we have a very similar approach, but your explanation
missed a crucial step between 10 and 11. Or rather, the explanation why
this is actually possible. In your explanation, you simple delete the thing
being taught, and then (syntactically) move the person being taught into
that position. You didn't explain why this works, though.
My explanation for that was the prefix trick (dative shift). Do you think
that is what is happening there? With that, your sentences 11 and 12 follow
automatically.
About SuStel's answers: I confess that I got a bit confused, and I wouldn't
go as far as to say that Klingon solves these things merely by semantics.
It didn't convince me, but it didn't strike me as wrong in the way that
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's idea did (qamawqangbe'!).
By the way, a few weeks ago someone said that there probably wouldn't be
much to publish in a potential new issue of HolQeD, but I think there is.
Debates like these, and conflicting theories could be turned into valid
articles. And even if I disagree with lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's interpretation and
conclusion, I think it could be a valid article on the same topic. Just
like in other linguistic journals about natural languages. It could also be
just one article presenting all three(?) ideas.
- Andr=C3=A9
2015-11-23 22:42 GMT+01:00 Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>:
> Once more unto the breach...
>
> I just started reading the debate that led up to this thread, so I'm
> *really* far behind. I'm like a child that's wandered into the middle of
> a movie. That said, I had a similar debate with SuStel on this topic six
> years ago, and I'd be far too selfless an egomaniac if I didn't bring it =
up
> now.
>
> I ended up just quitting the debate with SuStel. I felt like I was gettin=
g
> more hostile with every e-mail, and I didn't like that feeling. SuStel, I=
'm
> sorry about that. I should have been more direct rather than just cutting
> off.
>
> That said, I find SuStel's explanation... idiosyncratic. I think he's
> found a way to explain it that reliably helps him make sense of these
> issues, but is hard to explain to others. To me, it looks like he's putti=
ng
> syntax and semantics into separate buckets, but then mixing them back
> together haphazardly. I think it looks that way to me because I don't thi=
nk
> there is such a clear division between syntax and semantics--the whole
> point of syntax is the convey meaning. It's easy for SuStel to keep track
> of which one he's dealing with because he's already inside his head. The
> rest of us have a harder time keeping track of it.
>
> Below is my original explanation for the transitivity of {-moH} from
> October 2009. I think it's a more reliable explanation because it relies =
on
> syntax, which is accessible to outside observers, rather than semantics,
> which is an intuitive internal experience. It also has the advantage of
> being based in actual linguistic theory (from my typology class when I
> tried to make linguistics my second major).
>
> I realize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a small part of this debate,
> but I think my explanation offers clear rules for analyzing how these ver=
bs
> work.
>
> Submitted for your consideration...
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brent Kesler <
> brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once more unto the breach...
>>
>> Reading this debate reminds me of valency, the number of arguments a
>> verb can have. There are two types of arguments: core arguments, such
>> as the object and the subject, and peripheral arguments, which are
>> usually marked by a preposition or affix. In Klingon, peripheral
>> arguments are marked by -Daq, -vaD, and maybe -'e' (but that's a
>> different debate).
>>
>> Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):
>> 1. tuH yaS
>> - The officer is ashamed.
>>
>> Other verbs are divalent (two arguments):
>> 2. yaS qIp puq
>> - The child hits the officer.
>>
>> English has some trivalent verbs:
>> 3. The child gives the officer a weapon.
>>
>> Languages have valency changing constructions. Some constructions are
>> valency reducing. Examples in Klingon are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. They
>> make a divalent verb monovalent.
>>
>> 4. qIp'egh puq.
>> - The child hits himself.
>>
>> 5. qIpchuq yaS puq je.
>> - The officer and the child hit each other.
>>
>> Some constructions are valency increasing. They make a monovalent verb
>> divalent. {-moH} is valency increasing. It seems to follow the cross
>> linguistic pattern for a causative constuction:
>>
>> a. Causative applies to an underlying intransitive clause and forms a
>> derived transitive.
>> b. The argument in underlying S function (the causee) goes into O
>> function in the causative.
>> c. A new argument (the causer) is introduced, in A function.
>> d. There is some explicit formal marking of the causative construction.
>>
>> (S being the subject of an intransitive, monovalent verb, O the object
>> of a transitive, divalent verb, and A the subject of a transitive,
>> divalent verb)
>>
>> 6. tuH yaS.
>> - The officer is ashamed
>>
>> In sentence 6, {yas} is the S argument of {tuH}. Now let's apply {-moH}:
>>
>> 7. yaS tuHmoH puq.
>> - The child shames the officer. The child causes the officer to be
>> ashamed.
>>
>> We've applied the causative to an underlying intransitive to derive a
>> transitive (condition a). The underlying S function {yaS} has become
>> the O function of the causative (b). The causer has been introduced as
>> a new argument in the A function (c). And the causative construction
>> is explicitly marked (d).
>>
>> The place where we seem to be getting confused are when we try to
>> apply {-moH} to a verb that's already divalent. Applying the causative
>> construction to a transitive verb is rare cross-linguistically. A
>> transitive verb already has A and O arguments; in sentence 8, {wo'rIv}
>> is the A argument and {quHDaj} is the O argument:
>>
>> 8. quHDaj qaw wo'rIv.
>> - Worf remembers his heritage.
>>
>> Applying the causative increases the valency by one. So what do we do
>> with the original A and O arguments? There are five possibilities:
>>
>> (i) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is specially marked,
>> and the original O remains the O.
>> (ii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is also marked as
>> the A argument in the same way as the new A, and the original O
>> remains the O.
>> (iii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is marked as the O,
>> and the original O is also marked as the O.
>> (iv) New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes the new O,
>> and the original O becomes a peripheral (non-core) argument.
>> (v) New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes a non-core
>> argument, and the original O remains the O.
>>
>> In sentence 9, Klingon uses option (v).
>>
>> 9. wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.
>> - The sash causes Worf to remember his heritage.
>>
>> The new causer {Ha'quj} takes the A slot. {wo'rIv}, the original A,
>> has become the non-core {wo'rIvvaD}. The original O {quHDaj} remains
>> in the O slot.
>>
>> Now let's consider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can also follow pattern
>> (v):
>>
>> 10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach science to the child (I cause the learning of science for the
>> child).
>>
>> However, let's say we want to drop one of these arguments. Maybe I
>> teach the child something, it doesn't matter what:
>>
>> 11. puq vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach the child (I cause the child to learn).
>>
>> Or I teach science to somebody, it doesn't matter whom:
>>
>> 12. QeD vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach science (I cause the learning of science).
>>
>> The problem with applying the causative to transitive verbs is that we
>> end up with three arguments with only two core slots to put them in,
>> so we have to resort to a non-core marking, {-vaD}, for one of them.
>> But if one of those arguments is unstated, perhaps we can apply either
>> pattern (iv), as in sentence 11, or pattern (v), as in sentence 12,
>> with the implied {-vaD} argument left unspoken.
>>
>> bI'reng
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
--001a11411d16689c9a05253c7430
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>bI'reng, I don't know if you have a=
lready read as far as my response to the issue, but it seems we have a very=
similar approach, but your explanation missed a crucial step between 10 an=
d 11. Or rather, the explanation why this is actually possible. In your exp=
lanation, you simple delete the thing being taught, and then (syntactically=
) move the person being taught into that position. You didn't explain w=
hy this works, though. <br></div>My explanation for that was the prefix tri=
ck (dative shift). Do you think that is what is happening there? With that,=
your sentences 11 and 12 follow automatically.<br><br></div><div>About SuS=
tel's answers: I confess that I got a bit confused, and I wouldn't =
go as far as to say that Klingon solves these things merely by semantics. I=
t didn't convince me, but it didn't strike me as wrong in the way t=
hat lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's idea did (qamawqangbe'!).<br></div><=
div><br></div>By the way, a few weeks ago someone said that there probably =
wouldn't be much to publish in a potential new issue of HolQeD, but I t=
hink there is. Debates like these, and conflicting theories could be turned=
into valid articles. And even if I disagree with lojmIt tI'wI'nuv&=
#39;s interpretation and conclusion, I think it could be a valid article on=
the same topic. Just like in other linguistic journals about natural langu=
ages. It could also be just one article presenting all three(?) ideas. <br>=
<br></div>- Andr=C3=A9<br><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-23 22:42 GMT+01:00 Brent Kesler <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:brent.of.all.people@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">brent.of.all.people@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Once more =
unto the breach...</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I just started reading the=
debate that led up to this thread, so I'm <i>really</i> far behind. I&=
#39;m like a child that's wandered into the middle of a movie. That sai=
d, I had a similar debate with SuStel on this topic six years ago, and I=
9;d be far too selfless an egomaniac if I didn't bring it up now.</span=
></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span st=
yle=3D"font-size:12.8px">I ended up just quitting the debate with SuStel. I=
felt like I was getting more hostile with every e-mail, and I didn't l=
ike that feeling. SuStel, I'm sorry about that. I should have been more=
direct rather than just cutting off.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">That sa=
id, I find SuStel's explanation... idiosyncratic. I think he's foun=
d a way to explain it that reliably helps him make sense of these issues, b=
ut is hard to explain to others. To me, it looks like he's putting synt=
ax and semantics into separate buckets, but then mixing them back together =
haphazardly. I think it looks that way to me because I don't think ther=
e is such a clear division between syntax and semantics--the whole point of=
syntax is the convey meaning. It's easy for SuStel to keep track of wh=
ich one he's dealing with because he's already inside his head. The=
rest of us have a harder time keeping track of it.</span></div><div><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">Below is my original explanation for the transitivity of {-moH} from=
October 2009. I think it's a more reliable explanation because it reli=
es on syntax, which is accessible to outside observers, rather than semanti=
cs, which is an intuitive internal experience. It also has the advantage of=
being based in actual linguistic theory (from my typology class when I tri=
ed to make linguistics my second major).</span></div><div><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I re=
alize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a small part of this debate, but I=
think my explanation offers clear rules for analyzing how these verbs work=
.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><=
span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Submitted for your consideration...</span><=
/div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div>On Tue, Oc=
t 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brent Kesler=C2=A0<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:brent.of.all.people@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">brent.of.all.people@g=
mail.com</a>></span>=C2=A0wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb=
(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Once more unto the =
breach...<br><br>Reading this debate reminds me of valency, the number of a=
rguments a<br>verb can have. There are two types of arguments: core argumen=
ts, such<br>as the object and the subject, and peripheral arguments, which =
are<br>usually marked by a preposition or affix. In Klingon, peripheral<br>=
arguments are marked by -Daq, -vaD, and maybe -'e' (but that's =
a<br>different debate).<br><br>Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):<br=
>1. tuH yaS<br>- The officer is ashamed.<br><br>Other verbs are divalent (t=
wo arguments):<br>2. yaS qIp puq<br>- The child hits the officer.<br><br>En=
glish has some trivalent verbs:<br>3. The child gives the officer a weapon.=
<br><br>Languages have valency changing constructions. Some constructions a=
re<br>valency reducing. Examples in Klingon are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. Th=
ey<br>make a divalent verb monovalent.<br><br>4. qIp'egh puq.<br>- The =
child hits himself.<br><br>5. qIpchuq yaS puq je.<br>- The officer and the =
child hit each other.<br><br>Some constructions are valency increasing. The=
y make a monovalent verb<br>divalent. {-moH} is valency increasing. It seem=
s to follow the cross<br>linguistic pattern for a causative constuction:<br=
><br>a. Causative applies to an underlying intransitive clause and forms a<=
br>derived transitive.<br>b. The argument in underlying S function (the cau=
see) goes into O<br>function in the causative.<br>c. A new argument (the ca=
user) is introduced, in A function.<br>d. There is some explicit formal mar=
king of the causative construction.<br><br>(S being the subject of an intra=
nsitive, monovalent verb, O the object<br>of a transitive, divalent verb, a=
nd A the subject of a transitive,<br>divalent verb)<br><br>6. tuH yaS.<br>-=
The officer is ashamed<br><br>In sentence 6, {yas} is the S argument of {t=
uH}. Now let's apply {-moH}:<br><br>7. yaS tuHmoH puq.<br>- The child s=
hames the officer. The child causes the officer to be ashamed.<br><br>We=
9;ve applied the causative to an underlying intransitive to derive a<br>tra=
nsitive (condition a). The underlying S function {yaS} has become<br>the O =
function of the causative (b). The causer has been introduced as<br>a new a=
rgument in the A function (c). And the causative construction<br>is explici=
tly marked (d).<br><br>The place where we seem to be getting confused are w=
hen we try to<br>apply {-moH} to a verb that's already divalent. Applyi=
ng the causative<br>construction to a transitive verb is rare cross-linguis=
tically. A<br>transitive verb already has A and O arguments; in sentence 8,=
{wo'rIv}<br>is the A argument and {quHDaj} is the O argument:<br><br>8=
. quHDaj qaw wo'rIv.<br>- Worf remembers his heritage.<br><br>Applying =
the causative increases the valency by one. So what do we do<br>with the or=
iginal A and O arguments? There are five possibilities:<br><br>(i) New caus=
er becomes the new A, the original A is specially marked,<br>and the origin=
al O remains the O.<br>(ii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is=
also marked as<br>the A argument in the same way as the new A, and the ori=
ginal O<br>remains the O.<br>(iii) New causer becomes the new A, the origin=
al A is marked as the O,<br>and the original O is also marked as the O.<br>=
(iv) New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes the new O,<br>and=
the original O becomes a peripheral (non-core) argument.<br>(v) New causer=
becomes the new A, the original A becomes a non-core<br>argument, and the =
original O remains the O.<br><br>In sentence 9, Klingon uses option (v).<br=
><br>9. wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.<br>- The sash causes Worf t=
o remember his heritage.<br><br>The new causer {Ha'quj} takes the A slo=
t. {wo'rIv}, the original A,<br>has become the non-core {wo'rIvvaD}=
. The original O {quHDaj} remains<br>in the O slot.<br><br>Now let's co=
nsider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can also follow pattern (v):<br><br>10. =
puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach science to the child (I cause the learni=
ng of science for the child).<br><br>However, let's say we want to drop=
one of these arguments. Maybe I<br>teach the child something, it doesn'=
;t matter what:<br><br>11. puq vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach the child (I cause t=
he child to learn).<br><br>Or I teach science to somebody, it doesn't m=
atter whom:<br><br>12. QeD vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach science (I cause the lea=
rning of science).<br><br>The problem with applying the causative to transi=
tive verbs is that we<br>end up with three arguments with only two core slo=
ts to put them in,<br>so we have to resort to a non-core marking, {-vaD}, f=
or one of them.<br>But if one of those arguments is unstated, perhaps we ca=
n apply either<br>pattern (iv), as in sentence 11, or pattern (v), as in se=
ntence 12,<br>with the implied {-vaD} argument left unspoken.<br><br>bI'=
;reng</blockquote></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.=
org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</=
a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
--001a11411d16689c9a05253c7430--
--===============1339183289549127281==
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
--===============1339183289549127281==--
