[1780] in tlhIngan-Hol
the mysterious DOUBLE PREDICATE CAUSITIVES
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Wed Oct 20 02:21:46 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 02:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
PaulClegg stirred up quite a lot of talk by posting his "Daily Musings"
which contained the gargantuan compound (probably not to be taken as
seriously as some people have taken it; it was just one of those fun,
nonsense ideas..) {ghuntaHghachHolpaQDI'norghvaD}. charghwI' wrote a
big long message of mostly apparent rambling (containing some worthwhile
material, nevertheless) suggesting an alternative sentence that would
get around having to juggle 25 letter compounds: He came up with
{cha'leS muchov De'wI' Holmey ghojmoHwI'wI'} meaning the same thing
as PClegg meant in his sentence..
However, I'm not going to go into the discussion charghwI' & PClegg were
having; rather I want to talk (write, of course) a little on charghwI'[']s
sentence.
Probably no one here has a mind that thinks as industriously hard on
extremely unimportant things as mine (I once calculated, for no reason
at all, the number of millimeters in a light-year. Unfortunately, I
forget where I put the final answer..)Notice in this sentence, the noun phrase:
{De'wI' Holmey ghojmoHwI'wI'}... This, I believe, was intended to mean
"[my] one who teach computer languages." But {ghojmoH} does not really
mean "teach." It really should be translated: "one who causes to learn
computer languages." But wait a second.. It's "one who causes [WHO] to
learn computer languages." This is a <trumpet fanfare!!> *DOUBLE
PREDICATE CAUSITIVE*.
I'll make it more clear (clearer?) by turning it into a verb.
{De'wI' Holmey ghojmoH}. "Computer languages" is not the verb here.
Unless you wanted to mean "[he/she] causes the computer languages to learn."
In all seriousness (snicker!snicker!) I don't think you really meant that.
What we're dealing with here is of course, as I said (wrote) earlier is
a
DOUBLE PREDICATE CAUSITIVE.
Maybe you would be a whole lot better off saying
{De'wI' Holmey ghoj 'e' qaSmoH} "[he/she] causes that, [he/she] learns
computer languages." This information is nothing new to those of you who
read my letter to HolQeD 2:3 (pg.11) on the subject of.. you know....
doublepredicatecausitives. The problem we then have is metamorphicizing
{De'wI' Holmey vIghoj 'e' qaSmoH} back into a {-wI'} phrase. Maybe
just tack on {-wI'} to the very end of this phrase and forget about it.
After all, we seem to accept that verbs with {-wI'} can have an object:
as in Marnen's {paqghItlhwI'} for "author."
So, after all this industrious scrutiny:
{cha'leS muchov De'wI' Holmey vIghoj 'e' qaSmoHwI'}.
Phew! How's that???? "He/She who causes that I learn computer languages
evaluted me two days ago." It's wordy and awkward, yeah, I know. But
it's follows proper grammar more closely than WMartin's.
By the way, if you wanted to say simply "my teacher," how about
{mughojmoHwI'}? (he/she who causes me to learn [an indefinite something]).
So there, charghwI'! (Don't take it personally. Those D.P.C.'s are
something we haven't really talked about in depth anywhere in the
realm of the studying of tlhIngan Hol as far as I know.).
This is Guido#1 finally signing off ---*
Thank ewe!
