[102573] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Nov 24 10:04:50 2015
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:04:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <BAY179-W9546D5FBF7162C98CB8CECAA060@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 11/24/2015 1:00 AM, Rohan Fenwick wrote:
> What is happening in Klingon is a clear and simple (in my eyes, at
> least) instance of syntactic demotion. Semantically, a causative of a
> bivalent verb *does* have two functional objects: one is the causee, one
> is the original object. The fact that causatives of monovalent verbs
> take a direct object shows that the causee is, underlyingly at least, an
> object. But syntactically, Klingon doesn't permit there to be two
> objects in a sentence, so in order to represent both of the objects of
> the causative of a bivalent verb, one of them has to be demoted out to
> another syntactic role. Talking about the {-vaD}-marked object here
> specifically as a "beneficiary" is a little misleading because {-vaD}
> can also mark a somewhat less classically benefactive indirect object,
> which we're told in the TKD addendum. It's this function of {-vaD}
> that's relevant here. The way this demotion takes place, at least if the
> S20 example is to be taken as representative (dangerous with a hapax, I
> know), is that the causee is the noun demoted, and it's shifted into the
> header, where it takes {-vaD}.
What he said! :D
We get two more examples in paq'batlh:
maHvaD lojmItmey tIpoSmoH
Notice that it's not {lojmItmey ghopoSmoH}.
QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
