[102562] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brent Kesler)
Mon Nov 23 20:43:29 2015
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbU7iu4Pya4gxQ9MpvJM9nAk0q2LsAWE1karx1q-wWz-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:43:12 -0500
From: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============2689839342939225029==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11369496fc157805253f76f6
--001a11369496fc157805253f76f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've read your argument now, and I wish I had read it sooner. I'm glad I'm
catching up.
Before I answer some of your questions, I'm going to copy and paste my
examples for easy reference:
10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
11. puq vIghojmoH.
12. QeD vIghojmoH.
You're right that I don't explain how both sentences 11 and 12 follow from
10. The reason is that my argument is just a hypothesis. It could be wrong.
Both {puq vIghojmoH} and {QeD vIghojmoH} seem like acceptable sentences to
me, and this is an explanation of how both sentences *could* be acceptable.
But we don't have strong enough evidence to say that it's an actual rule.
However, I want to clarify a bit of my thinking. I'm don't think of
sentence 11 as deleting the thing being taught (QeD) and moving the person
being taught (puq) from the {-vaD} position to the direct object position.
I think all three sentences--10, 11, and 12--are separate applications of
{-moH} to the underlying sentence {QeD ghoj puq}.
We only need a clear rule when we have three arguments with a transitive
verb + {-moH}: previous A is marked as a non-core argument with {-vaD}, and
previous O remains the O. If we leave one of those arguments out, we can
put *either* the previous O or the previous A in the O slot. As long as we
use only one of them, we don't need any special syntactic marking to make
the meaning clear. (At least that's my hypothesis).
If that's the case, I don't need to delete {QeD} and promote {puqvaD} up to
{puq}, and I don't need a rule saying I can do that. If I say {QeD
vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom with Science
sitting at his desk while I give a lecture about poetry. If I say {puq
vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom giving a
lecture about children--or at least, most people would assume I helping a
child learn something, since that's the usual meaning of a sentence like
that--and it's the usual meaning because that's what happens more often in
our real world experience. If we lived in the setting of "Children of Men",
maybe a lecture about children would be the "obvious" meaning of {puq
vIghojmoH}.
In other words, I think Klingon offers multiple strategies when applying
{-moH} to transitives, and speakers can choose the strategy that best fits
what they want to say. I think that fits the spirit of many of MO's
translations, but--again, and I can't stress this enough--this is just my
hypothesis, and it could be wrong.
I think part of this debate stems from the two different ways we look at
language and grammar (for any language). The first is that language is an
exercise in symbolic logic. Words have a clear symbolic meaning, and
grammars give clear rules for arranging those symbols to create new
meanings. The second is that languages are used by organic beings that
aren't really good at using symbolic logic, so they end up with a lot of
quirks that don't follow nice logical rules. Sometimes there's a hidden
logic to those quirks that even the speakers aren't aware of, but sometimes
they are just exceptions to the rules that need to be memorized. In other
words, language is as much an exercise in culture and history as it is in
symbolic logic.
I think a lot of people here prefer the symbolic logic approach for two
reasons: 1) a lot of us have an education or career that relies heavily on
symbolic logic (eg, computer programmers), so that's just the way we're
used to thinking; and 2) you can use symbolic logic to figure out things
you didn't know before. If you have to rely on culture or history, then you
can't figure it out on your own--someone has to tell you the answer. And
when you're learning Klingon, waiting for an answer can be agonizing slow.
bI'reng
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller <esperantist@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> 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 simpl=
e
> delete the thing being taught, and then (syntactically) move the person
> being taught into that position. You didn't explain why this works, thoug=
h.
> 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 foll=
ow
> 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 a=
nd
> 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
>> getting 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 putt=
ing
>> 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 th=
ink
>> 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 trac=
k
>> 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 ve=
rbs
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
--001a11369496fc157805253f76f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I've read your argument now, and I wish I had read it =
sooner. I'm glad I'm catching up.<div><br></div><div>Before I answe=
r some of your questions, I'm going to copy and paste my examples for e=
asy reference:</div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div>=
<div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.</span></div=
><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">11. puq vIghojmoH.</span></div><div>=
<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">12. QeD vIghojmoH.</span><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px"><br></span><div><br></div><div>You're right that I don&=
#39;t explain how both sentences 11 and 12 follow from 10. The reason is th=
at my argument is just a hypothesis. It could be wrong. Both {puq vIghojmoH=
} and {QeD vIghojmoH} seem like acceptable sentences to me, and this is an =
explanation of how both sentences *could* be acceptable. But we don't h=
ave strong enough evidence to say that it's an actual rule.</div><div><=
br></div><div>However, I want to clarify a bit of my thinking. I'm don&=
#39;t think of sentence 11 as deleting the thing being taught (QeD) and mov=
ing the person being taught (puq) from the {-vaD} position to the direct ob=
ject position. I think all three sentences--10, 11, and 12--are separate ap=
plications of {-moH} to the underlying sentence {QeD ghoj puq}.</div><div><=
br></div><div>We only need a clear rule when we have three arguments with a=
transitive verb + {-moH}: previous A is marked as a non-core argument with=
{-vaD}, and previous O remains the O. If we leave one of those arguments o=
ut, we can put *either* the previous O or the previous A in the O slot. As =
long as we use only one of them, we don't need any special syntactic ma=
rking to make the meaning clear. (At least that's my hypothesis).</div>=
<div><br></div><div>If that's the case, I don't need to delete {QeD=
} and promote {puqvaD} up to {puq}, and I don't need a rule saying I ca=
n do that. If I say {QeD vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not stan=
ding in a classroom with Science sitting at his desk while I give a lecture=
about poetry. If I say {puq vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not =
standing in a classroom giving a lecture about children--or at least, most =
people would assume I helping a child learn something, since that's the=
usual meaning of a sentence like that--and it's the usual meaning beca=
use that's what happens more often in our real world experience. If we =
lived in the setting of "Children of Men", maybe a lecture about =
children would be the "obvious" meaning of {puq vIghojmoH}.<br></=
div><div><br></div><div>In other words, I think Klingon offers multiple str=
ategies when applying {-moH} to transitives, and speakers can choose the st=
rategy that best fits what they want to say. I think that fits the spirit o=
f many of MO's translations, but--again, and I can't stress this en=
ough--this is just my hypothesis, and it could be wrong.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>I think part of this debate stems from the two different ways we loo=
k at language and grammar (for any language). The first is that language is=
an exercise in symbolic logic. Words have a clear symbolic meaning, and gr=
ammars give clear rules for arranging those symbols to create new meanings.=
The second is that languages are used by organic beings that aren't re=
ally good at using symbolic logic, so they end up with a lot of quirks that=
don't follow nice logical rules. Sometimes there's a hidden logic =
to those quirks that even the speakers aren't aware of, but sometimes t=
hey are just exceptions to the rules that need to be memorized. In other wo=
rds, language is as much an exercise in culture and history as it is in sym=
bolic logic.</div><div><br></div><div>I think a lot of people here prefer t=
he symbolic logic approach for two reasons: 1) a lot of us have an educatio=
n or career that relies heavily on symbolic logic (eg, computer programmers=
), so that's just the way we're used to thinking; and 2) you can us=
e symbolic logic to figure out things you didn't know before. If you ha=
ve to rely on culture or history, then you can't figure it out on your =
own--someone has to tell you the answer. And when you're learning Kling=
on, waiting for an answer can be agonizing slow.</div><div><br></div><div>b=
I'reng</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=
=BCller <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:esperantist@gmail.com" targ=
et=3D"_blank">esperantist@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px=
;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>bI'reng, I don't know if you hav=
e already read as far as my response to the issue, but it seems we have a v=
ery 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 (syntactica=
lly) move the person being taught into that position. You didn't explai=
n why this works, though. <br></div>My explanation for that was the prefix =
trick (dative shift). Do you think that is what is happening there? With th=
at, your sentences 11 and 12 follow automatically.<br><br></div><div>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 wa=
y that lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's idea did (qamawqangbe'!).<br></di=
v><div><br></div>By the way, a few weeks ago someone said that there probab=
ly 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 tur=
ned into valid articles. And even if I disagree with lojmIt tI'wI'n=
uv's interpretation and conclusion, I think it could be a valid article=
on the same topic. Just like in other linguistic journals about natural la=
nguages. It could also be just one article presenting all three(?) ideas. <=
br><span><font color=3D"#888888"><br></font></span></div><span><font color=
=3D"#888888">- Andr=C3=A9<br></font></span><div><div><div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div>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"_blank">brent.of.all.people@gmail.com</a>></span>:=
<br></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-le=
ft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span styl=
e=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:1=
2.8px">I just started reading the debate that led up to this thread, so I&#=
39;m <i>really</i> far behind. I'm like a child that's wandered int=
o the middle of a movie. That said, I had a similar debate with SuStel on t=
his topic six years ago, and I'd be far too selfless an egomaniac if I =
didn't bring it up now.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8p=
x"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I ended up just q=
uitting the debate with SuStel. I felt like I was getting more hostile with=
every e-mail, and I didn't like that feeling. SuStel, I'm sorry ab=
out that. I should have been more direct rather than just cutting off.</spa=
n></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.8px">That said, I find SuStel's explanation... idi=
osyncratic. 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 putting syntax and semantics into separate buckets, bu=
t then mixing them back together haphazardly. I think it looks that way to =
me because I don't think there is such a clear division between syntax =
and semantics--the whole point of syntax is the convey meaning. It's ea=
sy for SuStel to keep track of which one he's dealing with because he&#=
39;s already inside his head. The rest of us have a harder time keeping tra=
ck of it.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></di=
v><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Below is my original explanation fo=
r the transitivity of {-moH} from October 2009. I think it's a more rel=
iable explanation because it relies on syntax, which is accessible to outsi=
de observers, rather than semantics, which is an intuitive internal experie=
nce. 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).</=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><spa=
n style=3D"font-size:12.8px">I realize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a=
small part of this debate, but I think my explanation offers clear rules f=
or analyzing how these verbs work.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-siz=
e: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, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brent Kesler=C2=A0<s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:brent.of.all.people@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">brent.of.all.people@gmail.com</a>></span>=C2=A0wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">Once more unto the breach...<br><br>Reading this debate remin=
ds me of valency, the number of arguments a<br>verb can have. There are two=
types of arguments: core arguments, 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 ma=
ybe -'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.<b=
r><br>Other verbs are divalent (two arguments):<br>2. yaS qIp puq<br>- The =
child hits the officer.<br><br>English has some trivalent verbs:<br>3. The =
child gives the officer a weapon.<br><br>Languages have valency changing co=
nstructions. Some constructions are<br>valency reducing. Examples in Klingo=
n are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. They<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 construc=
tions are valency increasing. They make a monovalent verb<br>divalent. {-mo=
H} is valency increasing. It seems to follow the cross<br>linguistic patter=
n 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 causee) goes into O<br>function in the causat=
ive.<br>c. A new argument (the causer) is introduced, in A function.<br>d. =
There is some explicit formal marking of the causative construction.<br><br=
>(S being the subject of an intransitive, monovalent verb, O the object<br>=
of a transitive, divalent verb, and A the subject of a transitive,<br>dival=
ent verb)<br><br>6. tuH yaS.<br>- The officer is ashamed<br><br>In sentence=
6, {yas} is the S argument of {tuH}. Now let's apply {-moH}:<br><br>7.=
yaS tuHmoH puq.<br>- The child shames the officer. The child causes the of=
ficer to be ashamed.<br><br>We've applied the causative to an underlyin=
g intransitive to derive a<br>transitive (condition a). The underlying S fu=
nction {yaS} has become<br>the O function of the causative (b). The causer =
has been introduced as<br>a new argument in the A function (c). And the cau=
sative construction<br>is explicitly marked (d).<br><br>The place where we =
seem to be getting confused are when we try to<br>apply {-moH} to a verb th=
at's already divalent. Applying the causative<br>construction to a tran=
sitive verb is rare cross-linguistically. A<br>transitive verb already has =
A and O arguments; in sentence 8, {wo'rIv}<br>is the A argument and {qu=
HDaj} is the O argument:<br><br>8. quHDaj qaw wo'rIv.<br>- Worf remembe=
rs his heritage.<br><br>Applying the causative increases the valency by one=
. So what do we do<br>with the original A and O arguments? There are five p=
ossibilities:<br><br>(i) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is sp=
ecially marked,<br>and the original O remains the O.<br>(ii) New causer bec=
omes the new A, the original A is also marked as<br>the A argument in the s=
ame way as the new A, and the original O<br>remains the O.<br>(iii) New cau=
ser becomes the new A, the original A is marked as the O,<br>and the origin=
al O is also marked as the O.<br>(iv) New causer becomes the new A, the ori=
ginal 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 senten=
ce 9, Klingon uses option (v).<br><br>9. wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'=
;quj.<br>- The sash causes Worf to remember his heritage.<br><br>The new ca=
user {Ha'quj} takes the A slot. {wo'rIv}, the original A,<br>has be=
come the non-core {wo'rIvvaD}. The original O {quHDaj} remains<br>in th=
e O slot.<br><br>Now let's consider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can als=
o follow pattern (v):<br><br>10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach science=
to the child (I cause the learning of science for the child).<br><br>Howev=
er, 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 the child to learn).<br><br>Or I teach scie=
nce to somebody, it doesn't matter whom:<br><br>12. QeD vIghojmoH.<br>-=
I teach science (I cause the learning of science).<br><br>The problem with=
applying the causative to transitive verbs is that we<br>end up with three=
arguments with only two core slots to put them in,<br>so we have to resort=
to a non-core marking, {-vaD}, for one of them.<br>But if one of those arg=
uments is unstated, perhaps we can apply either<br>pattern (iv), as in sent=
ence 11, or pattern (v), as in sentence 12,<br>with the implied {-vaD} argu=
ment left unspoken.<br><br>bI'reng</blockquote></div></div>
<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<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></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></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>
--001a11369496fc157805253f76f6--
--===============2689839342939225029==
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
--===============2689839342939225029==--
