[111777] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -moH on ghoS and jaH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Feb 20 12:49:19 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:49:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAN6Wpk6UKh3-9i4S88rEZ2XornuYrqOGh2pXOU+FSWzxmjT_XA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3579102344651638778==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------75B483C738E2B39C837C0ECE"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------75B483C738E2B39C837C0ECE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 2/20/2019 11:38 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
> Recently the list had a short discussion about the difference between
> {pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}.
>
> I'm curious about the relationship between those things when you add
> -moH onto the end of it.
>
> Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is it
> "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere unspecified)"?
> Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former, but I'm unsure.
Let's preface this with the understanding that we're talking about *pa'*
/room,/ not *pa'*/thereabouts./ I'd actually rather change this word to
*Duj*/vessel/ so we don't get confused, because *pa'* causes all sorts
of problems with this analysis. Let's also assume we're not going to be
redundant by adding *-Daq* to a verb's object. The following completely
ignores that possibility.
Remember this conversation
(http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt) where Okrand says
that you can tell that *qajatlh* is employing what we later called the
prefix trick, because the direct object of *jatlh* is the thing spoken,
not the person spoken to, so if the prefix indicates the person spoken
to it must be indicating the indirect object.
Since the object of *jatlh *is that which is spoken, and since /you/
or /I/ or /we/ cannot be spoken (and therefore cannot be the object
of the verb), if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix
indicating a first- or second-person object, that first or second
person is the indirect object.
We have exactly the same situation here. The (direct) object of *ghoS*
is the path followed, not the person following it, so since the prefix
*qa-* indicates a person, it must be indicating the indirect object.
There's your prefix trick right there. *DujDaq qaghoSmoH* means /In the
ship, I cause you to go (along some unspecified path)./ It's ambiguous
in the sentence whether you or I or both of us are in the ship, but
you're not going /to/ the ship. Going to the ship would be *Duj
qaghoSmoH* or *SoHvaD Duj vIghoSmoH.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------75B483C738E2B39C837C0ECE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2019 11:38 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN6Wpk6UKh3-9i4S88rEZ2XornuYrqOGh2pXOU+FSWzxmjT_XA@mail.gmail.com">Recently
the list had a short discussion about the difference between
{pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm curious about the relationship between those things when
you add -moH onto the end of it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is
it "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere
unspecified)"? Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former,
but I'm unsure.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Let's preface this with the understanding that we're talking
about <b>pa'</b> <i>room,</i> not <b>pa'</b><i> thereabouts.</i>
I'd actually rather change this word to <b>Duj</b><i> vessel</i>
so we don't get confused, because <b>pa'</b> causes all sorts of
problems with this analysis. Let's also assume we're not going to
be redundant by adding <b>-Daq</b> to a verb's object. The
following completely ignores that possibility.<br>
</p>
<p>Remember this conversation
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt">http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt</a>) where Okrand
says that you can tell that <b>qajatlh</b> is employing what we
later called the prefix trick, because the direct object of <b>jatlh</b>
is the thing spoken, not the person spoken to, so if the prefix
indicates the person spoken to it must be indicating the indirect
object.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since the object of <b>jatlh </b>is that which is spoken, and
since <i>you</i> or <i>I</i> or <i>we</i> cannot be spoken
(and therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is
used with a pronominal prefix indicating a first- or
second-person object, that first or second person is the
indirect object.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We have exactly the same situation here. The (direct) object of <b>ghoS</b>
is the path followed, not the person following it, so since the
prefix <b>qa-</b> indicates a person, it must be indicating the
indirect object. There's your prefix trick right there. <b>DujDaq
qaghoSmoH</b> means <i>In the ship, I cause you to go (along
some unspecified path).</i> It's ambiguous in the sentence
whether you or I or both of us are in the ship, but you're not
going <i>to</i> the ship. Going to the ship would be <b>Duj
qaghoSmoH</b> or <b>SoHvaD Duj vIghoSmoH.</b></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------75B483C738E2B39C837C0ECE--
--===============3579102344651638778==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3579102344651638778==--
