[102583] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Tue Nov 24 22:18:31 2015
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmIttI7wI7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgJOr0oHQrwnZ-9pQYz13D708vLiAm-tX06XVfVgUuewzObmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:18:10 -0500
To: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0831620418492226193==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-F9763F33-26A4-4BFF-B435-A52714C121A0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-F9763F33-26A4-4BFF-B435-A52714C121A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I follow you right up to the very end. You mention an implied {-vaD}. Does t=
hat suggest that an explicit {-vaD} would also be correct? If not, why not?
Sent from my iPod
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>=20
> Once more unto the breach...
>=20
> I just started reading the debate that led up to this thread, so I'm reall=
y far behind. I'm like a child that's wandered into the middle of a movie. T=
hat said, I had a similar debate with SuStel on this topic six years ago, an=
d I'd be far too selfless an egomaniac if I didn't bring it up now.
>=20
> 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 o=
ff.
>=20
> That said, 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, bu=
t is hard to explain to others. To me, it looks like he's putting syntax and=
semantics into separate buckets, but then mixing them back together haphaza=
rdly. I think it looks that way to me because I don't think there is such a c=
lear 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 dealin=
g with because he's already inside his head. The rest of us have a harder ti=
me keeping track of it.
>=20
> Below is my original explanation for the transitivity of {-moH} from Octob=
er 2009. I think it's a more reliable explanation because it relies on synta=
x, which is accessible to outside observers, rather than semantics, which is=
an intuitive internal experience. It also has the advantage of being based i=
n actual linguistic theory (from my typology class when I tried to make ling=
uistics my second major).
>=20
> I realize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a small part of this debate, b=
ut I think my explanation offers clear rules for analyzing how these verbs w=
ork.
>=20
> Submitted for your consideration...
>=20
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>> Once more unto the breach...
>>=20
>> 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).
>>=20
>> Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):
>> 1. tuH yaS
>> - The officer is ashamed.
>>=20
>> Other verbs are divalent (two arguments):
>> 2. yaS qIp puq
>> - The child hits the officer.
>>=20
>> English has some trivalent verbs:
>> 3. The child gives the officer a weapon.
>>=20
>> Languages have valency changing constructions. Some constructions are
>> valency reducing. Examples in Klingon are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. They
>> make a divalent verb monovalent.
>>=20
>> 4. qIp'egh puq.
>> - The child hits himself.
>>=20
>> 5. qIpchuq yaS puq je.
>> - The officer and the child hit each other.
>>=20
>> 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:
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> (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)
>>=20
>> 6. tuH yaS.
>> - The officer is ashamed
>>=20
>> In sentence 6, {yas} is the S argument of {tuH}. Now let's apply {-moH}:
>>=20
>> 7. yaS tuHmoH puq.
>> - The child shames the officer. The child causes the officer to be ashame=
d.
>>=20
>> 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).
>>=20
>> 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:
>>=20
>> 8. quHDaj qaw wo'rIv.
>> - Worf remembers his heritage.
>>=20
>> Applying the causative increases the valency by one. So what do we do
>> with the original A and O arguments? There are five possibilities:
>>=20
>> (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.
>>=20
>> In sentence 9, Klingon uses option (v).
>>=20
>> 9. wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.
>> - The sash causes Worf to remember his heritage.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Now let's consider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can also follow pattern (v=
):
>>=20
>> 10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach science to the child (I cause the learning of science for the c=
hild).
>>=20
>> However, let's say we want to drop one of these arguments. Maybe I
>> teach the child something, it doesn't matter what:
>>=20
>> 11. puq vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach the child (I cause the child to learn).
>>=20
>> Or I teach science to somebody, it doesn't matter whom:
>>=20
>> 12. QeD vIghojmoH.
>> - I teach science (I cause the learning of science).
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> bI'reng
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail-F9763F33-26A4-4BFF-B435-A52714C121A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>I follow you right up to the very end.=
You mention an implied {-vaD}. Does that suggest that an explicit {-vaD} wo=
uld also be correct? If not, why not?<br><br>Sent from my iPod</div><div><br=
>On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Brent Kesler <<a href=3D"mailto:brent.of.al=
l.people@gmail.com">brent.of.all.people@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></di=
v><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:12.8px">Once more unto the breach...</span></div><div><span style=3D"fon=
t-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'm like a child that's wandered into the middle of a movie. Th=
at 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.</span></d=
iv><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D=
"font-size:12.8px">I ended up just quitting the debate with SuStel. I felt l=
ike I was getting more hostile with every e-mail, and I didn't like that fee=
ling. SuStel, I'm sorry about that. I should have been more direct rather th=
an 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 said, I find SuStel's=
explanation... idiosyncratic. I think he's found a way to explain it that r=
eliably helps him make sense of these issues, but is hard to explain to othe=
rs. To me, it looks like he's putting syntax and semantics into separate buc=
kets, but then mixing them back together haphazardly. I think it looks that w=
ay 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 easy f=
or SuStel to keep track of which one he's dealing with because he's already i=
nside 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 sty=
le=3D"font-size:12.8px">Below is my original explanation for the transitivit=
y of {-moH} from October 2009. I think it's a more reliable explanation beca=
use it relies on syntax, which is accessible to outside observers, rather th=
an semantics, which is an intuitive internal experience. It also has the adv=
antage of being based in actual linguistic theory (from my typology class wh=
en I tried to make linguistics my second major).</span></div><div><span styl=
e=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px=
">I realize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a small part of this debate, b=
ut I think my explanation offers clear rules for analyzing how these verbs w=
ork.</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 <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:brent.of.all.people@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">brent.of.all.people@gma=
il.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=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:1ex">Once more unto the breac=
h...<br><br>Reading this debate reminds me of valency, the number of argumen=
ts a<br>verb can have. There are two types of arguments: core arguments, suc=
h<br>as the object and the subject, and peripheral arguments, which are<br>u=
sually 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 of=
ficer is ashamed.<br><br>Other verbs are divalent (two arguments):<br>2. yaS=
qIp puq<br>- The child hits the officer.<br><br>English has some trivalent v=
erbs:<br>3. The child gives the officer a weapon.<br><br>Languages have vale=
ncy changing constructions. Some constructions are<br>valency reducing. Exam=
ples in Klingon are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. They<br>make a divalent verb monova=
lent.<br><br>4. qIp'egh puq.<br>- The child hits himself.<br><br>5. qIpchuq y=
aS puq je.<br>- The officer and the child hit each other.<br><br>Some constr=
uctions are valency increasing. They make a monovalent verb<br>divalent. {-m=
oH} 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 i=
ntransitive clause and forms a<br>derived transitive.<br>b. The argument in u=
nderlying S function (the causee) goes into O<br>function in the causative.<=
br>c. A new argument (the causer) is introduced, in A function.<br>d. There i=
s some explicit formal marking of the causative construction.<br><br>(S bein=
g the subject of an intransitive, monovalent verb, O the object<br>of a tran=
sitive, divalent verb, and 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} i=
s 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 officer to be asham=
ed.<br><br>We've applied the causative to an underlying intransitive to deri=
ve a<br>transitive (condition a). The underlying S function {yaS} has become=
<br>the O function of the causative (b). The causer has been introduced as<b=
r>a new argument in the A function (c). And the causative construction<br>is=
explicitly marked (d).<br><br>The place where we seem to be getting confuse=
d are when we try to<br>apply {-moH} to a verb that's already divalent. Appl=
ying the causative<br>construction to a transitive verb is rare cross-lingui=
stically. 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. quH=
Daj qaw wo'rIv.<br>- Worf remembers his heritage.<br><br>Applying the causat=
ive increases the valency by one. So what do we do<br>with the original A an=
d O arguments? There are five possibilities:<br><br>(i) New causer becomes t=
he new A, the original A is specially marked,<br>and the original O remains t=
he 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 original O<br>remai=
ns the O.<br>(iii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is marked as=
the O,<br>and the original O is also marked as the O.<br>(iv) New causer be=
comes the new A, the original A becomes the new O,<br>and the original O bec=
omes a peripheral (non-core) argument.<br>(v) New causer becomes the new A, t=
he 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 quHDa=
j qawmoH Ha'quj.<br>- The sash causes Worf to remember his heritage.<br><br>=
The new causer {Ha'quj} takes the A slot. {wo'rIv}, the original A,<br>has b=
ecome the non-core {wo'rIvvaD}. The original O {quHDaj} remains<br>in the O s=
lot.<br><br>Now let's consider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can also follow p=
attern (v):<br><br>10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach science to the chi=
ld (I cause the learning of science for the child).<br><br>However, let's sa=
y we want to drop one of these arguments. Maybe I<br>teach the child somethi=
ng, 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 science to somebody, it doe=
sn't matter whom:<br><br>12. QeD vIghojmoH.<br>- I teach science (I cause th=
e learning of science).<br><br>The problem with applying the causative to tr=
ansitive verbs is that we<br>end up with three arguments with only two core s=
lots 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 can=
apply either<br>pattern (iv), as in sentence 11, or pattern (v), as in sent=
ence 12,<br>with the implied {-vaD} argument left unspoken.<br><br>bI'reng</=
blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____________________=
___________________________</span><br><span>Tlhingan-hol mailing list</span>=
<br><span><a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a></=
span><br><span><a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol"=
>http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a></span><br></div></blo=
ckquote></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-F9763F33-26A4-4BFF-B435-A52714C121A0--
--===============0831620418492226193==
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
--===============0831620418492226193==--
