[102568] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Tue Nov 24 08:02:24 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:02:05 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNgoP6tQpe8sMpRTXH6-rXqiRWOnWR0ZXKsVzazWv8Fxg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8856783493092894333==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_d762d562-1661-428f-a405-0d3073d556bf_"
--_d762d562-1661-428f-a405-0d3073d556bf_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jatlhpu' De'vID:
> It's not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}=2C at least if we take TKD
> at its word.
vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:
> That takes TKD 4.2.1 not only at its word=2C but also in isolation and wi=
thout
> additional and appropriate context. What about {-moH}?
(poD vay')
jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:
> Aaaarrrrghhh. Of course=2C you're right. I knew that too.
> I had re-read the TKD section on {-'egh} and {-chuq} in an attempt to
> understand {quv HIja'chuqQo'} and in the process completely confused
> myself. This is one of those funny instances where you have a skill
> that you can apply without conscious effort=2C but when you try to do it
> consciously everything screws up. :-p
Fair enough! It happens to us all. =3B)
taH:
> Very clearly=2C when {-moH} is used with {-'egh} or {-chuq}=2C an object
> is possible. We have lots of canon for this:
> {yItaD'eghmoH}
> {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}
Ooo=2C I like that last one - it's entirely on point. Thank you for raising=
it. I couldn't find an example of {-chuqmoH} in canon to see how it might =
work=2C but that gives a clear example of a bivalent verb plus {-chuq} plus=
{-moH}=2C plus a clear interpretation of what it actually means.
It also happens to accord with my hypothesis about how the causative works=
=2C in that it seems to fill available nominal slots of the causative sente=
nce according to a hierarchy Agent(/Causer) > Patient > Instrument(/Causee)=
. The non-causative form would be {muvchuq Qo'noS tuqmey}. So in the causat=
ive=2C topmost is the agent (or causer)=2C {qeylIS}=2C so it takes the slot=
for the syntactic Subject. Next would be the patient (viz. of the non-caus=
ative verb) - but because of the suffix {-chuq}=2C there isn't an overt pat=
ient argument that can be placed as the syntactic Object. So the causee {Qo=
'noS tuqmey} gets placed into the empty syntactic Object slot instead.
taH:
> Because I was so focused on analysing {-chuq}=2C I interpreted
> {qawchuqmoH} as {qawmoH} + {-chuq} "cause-to-remember each other=2C
> remind each other" instead of {qawchuq} + {-moH} "cause to
> remember-each-other".
Yep=2C that latter is the interpretation I think works most naturally=2C an=
d it fits with the paq'batlh example as well.
taH:
> Obviously=2C {qawchuqmoH} can be used like this:
> {qeylIS luqara' je vIqawchuqmoH} "I caused Kahless and Lukara to
> remember each other"=2C "I reminded Kahless and Lukara of each other".
> {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} would mean something like "we remind our
> mission(s) of each other".
Well=2C something like that. I just realised earlier on=2C while composing =
my rather longer message in response to lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C that {Qu'maj w=
IqawchuqmoH} would probably also be ungrammatical=2C but for another reason=
: it'd have to be {DIqawchuqmoH}=2C because in practice {-chuq} only works =
with a plural scope.
taH:
> That brings up another point about an unclear area of Klingon grammar=2C
> and that's in which order do you apply the meaning of the suffixes?
> Most of the time=2C it doesn't matter=2C but occasionally you get somethi=
ng
> where the meaning changes depending on whether the suffix applies
> (only) to the root verb=2C to everything before it. Is this actually sett=
led?
Yah=2C that's still a volatile area in some aspects AFAIK. To answer that q=
uestion in the general case is a little beyond me at the moment=2C and I'd =
have to spend a lot more time not only immersing myself in the canon we hav=
e for multiply-suffixed verbs=2C but singling out only those ones where suf=
fix senses interact. {-moH} is obviously the big one in that regard because=
of its unusual behaviour in adding an actant to the underlying verb struct=
ure=2C and I do know we have two parallel examples of {-qangmoH} where it's=
the causee that is influenced by {-qang}=2C not the causer:
SuvqangmoHbej
"it certainly made him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7.18)
ghaH SuvqangmoHchu' molor
"Molor clearly made him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7.20-21)
but again=2C I emphasise I'm not aiming to answer this in the general case=
=2C just proffering these two examples.
QeS 'utlh =
--_d762d562-1661-428f-a405-0d3073d556bf_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
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'>jatlhpu' De'vID:<br>>=3B It's =
not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}=2C at least if we take TKD<br>>=3B=
at its word.<br><br>vIjangpu' jIH=2C jIjatlh:<br>>=3B That takes TKD 4.2=
.1 not only at its word=2C but also in isolation and without<br>>=3B addi=
tional and appropriate context. What about {-moH}?<br><br>(poD vay')<br><br=
>jang je De'vID=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Aaaarrrrghhh. Of course=2C you're right=
. I knew that too.<br>>=3B I had re-read the TKD section on {-'egh} and {=
-chuq} in an attempt to<br>>=3B understand {quv HIja'chuqQo'} and in the =
process completely confused<br>>=3B myself. This is one of those funny in=
stances where you have a skill<br>>=3B that you can apply without conscio=
us effort=2C but when you try to do it<br>>=3B consciously everything scr=
ews up. :-p<br><br>Fair enough! It happens to us all. =3B)<br><br>taH:<br>&=
gt=3B Very clearly=2C when {-moH} is used with {-'egh} or {-chuq}=2C an obj=
ect<br>>=3B is possible. We have lots of canon for this:<br>>=3B {yItaD=
'eghmoH}<br>>=3B {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}<br><br>Ooo=2C I like t=
hat last one - it's entirely on point. Thank you for raising it. I couldn't=
find an example of {-chuqmoH} in canon to see how it might work=2C but tha=
t gives a clear example of a bivalent verb plus {-chuq} plus {-moH}=2C plus=
a clear interpretation of what it actually means.<br><br>It also happens t=
o accord with my hypothesis about how the causative works=2C in that it see=
ms to fill available nominal slots of the causative sentence according to a=
hierarchy Agent(/Causer) >=3B Patient >=3B Instrument(/Causee). The no=
n-causative form would be {muvchuq Qo'noS tuqmey}. So in the causative=2C t=
opmost is the agent (or causer)=2C {qeylIS}=2C so it takes the slot for the=
syntactic Subject. Next would be the patient (viz. of the non-causative ve=
rb) - but because of the suffix {-chuq}=2C there isn't an overt patient arg=
ument that can be placed as the syntactic Object. So the causee {Qo'noS tuq=
mey} gets placed into the empty syntactic Object slot instead.<br><br>taH:<=
br>>=3B Because I was so focused on analysing {-chuq}=2C I interpreted<br=
>>=3B {qawchuqmoH} as {qawmoH} + {-chuq} "cause-to-remember each other=2C=
<br>>=3B remind each other" instead of {qawchuq} + {-moH} "cause to<br>&g=
t=3B remember-each-other".<br><br>Yep=2C that latter is the interpretation =
I think works most naturally=2C and it fits with the paq'batlh example as w=
ell.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Obviously=2C {qawchuqmoH} can be used like this:=
<br>>=3B {qeylIS luqara' je vIqawchuqmoH} "I caused Kahless and Lukara to=
<br>>=3B remember each other"=2C "I reminded Kahless and Lukara of each o=
ther".<br>>=3B {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} would mean something like "we remind=
our<br>>=3B mission(s) of each other".<br><br>Well=2C something like tha=
t. I just realised earlier on=2C while composing my rather longer message i=
n response to lojmIt tI'wI' nuv=2C that {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} would probabl=
y also be ungrammatical=2C but for another reason: it'd have to be {DIqawch=
uqmoH}=2C because in practice {-chuq} only works with a plural scope.<br><b=
r>taH:<br>>=3B That brings up another point about an unclear area of Klin=
gon grammar=2C<br>>=3B and that's in which order do you apply the meaning=
of the suffixes?<br>>=3B Most of the time=2C it doesn't matter=2C but oc=
casionally you get something<br>>=3B where the meaning changes depending =
on whether the suffix applies<br>>=3B (only) to the root verb=2C to every=
thing before it. Is this actually settled?<br><br>Yah=2C that's still a vol=
atile area in some aspects AFAIK. To answer that question in the general ca=
se is a little beyond me at the moment=2C and I'd have to spend a lot more =
time not only immersing myself in the canon we have for multiply-suffixed v=
erbs=2C but singling out only those ones where suffix senses interact. {-mo=
H} is obviously the big one in that regard because of its unusual behaviour=
in adding an actant to the underlying verb structure=2C and I do know we h=
ave two parallel examples of {-qangmoH} where it's the causee that is influ=
enced by {-qang}=2C not the causer:<br><br>SuvqangmoHbej<br>"it certainly m=
ade him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7.18)<br><br>ghaH SuvqangmoHc=
hu' molor<br>"Molor clearly made him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD =
7.20-21)<br><br>but again=2C I emphasise I'm not aiming to answer this in t=
he general case=2C just proffering these two examples.<br><br>QeS 'utlh =
</div></body>
</html>=
--_d762d562-1661-428f-a405-0d3073d556bf_--
--===============8856783493092894333==
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
--===============8856783493092894333==--
