[1829] in tlhIngan-Hol
DoublePredicateCausitives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 22 06:54:07 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: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 06:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
Recently I came up with a useful construction for dealing with DPCs.
It went something like this:
English: "[A] cause [B] to [verb] [C]." (I cause the kids to learn biology.)
Klingon: {[C] [verb] [B] 'e' qaSmoH [A]} (yInQeD lughoj puqpu' 'e' vIqaSmoH)
MarkShoulson, however, doesn't buy this idea. He suggested that indirect
objects using {-vaD} are more likely used in such double predicates.
{puqpu'vaD yInQeD vIghojmoH}
He went on to prove this with a construction using {je'}:
"I feed him qagh." - {ghaHvaD qagh vIje'}
This is evident by the fact that {je'} = {SopmoH}.
But would a Klingon really say {ghaHvaD qagh vISopmoH}.
Shoulson thinks so, of course, but I find it confusing as to whether
the object of {je'} is supposed to be a food or the thing that eats the food.
I would venture to say it's not both. Even tho it does make sense (to us
Terrans) to say either {qagh vIje'} or {ghaH vIje'}. I don't quite like
this, because if you said {qagh vISopmoH}, you would definitely get
several peculiar sneers from any nearby Klingons. It just doesn't
make sense to use {je'} or {SopmoH} without stating the thing that eats.
Also, again comparing our constructions, think about this sentence:
"Keep the bugs away from the control panel."/
"Cause the bugs to stay away from the control panel."
My method: {SeHlaw luDoHtaH ghewmey 'e' yIqaSmoH}.
MShoulson's method: {ghewmeyvaD SeHlaw yIDoHmoHtaH}*
If {qagh vISopmoH} brings a sneer of cynicism to a Klingon's face,
that latter sentence would most likely evoke slight violence in
contempt for someone who would slaughter tlhIngan Hol like that.
It doesn't remain consistent for all causitives. Maybe it works
with {ghojmoH}, but it certainly doesn't work with {DoHmoH} or,
say, {leghmoH}:
My stupid sister caused everyone to look at us.
{HochvaD maH nuleghmoHpu' be'nI'wI'}
Shoulson's major error is making the thing which looks the indirect
object, just as he made the thing(s) which learn the indirect object of
the first sentence above. But it still doesn't work if it's
{maHvaD Hoch leghmoHpu' be'nI'wI'} It's just not quite right.
Once again, my method: {nuleghpu' Hoch 'e' qaSmoH be'nI'wI QIp}
or better yet, {be'nI'wI' QIpmo' nuleghpu' Hoch}. Of course, you
can't use {-mo'} on the [A] noun if "cause" must be translated as
imperative or needs a suffix like {-nIS} or {-laH}.
Shoulson argued that Hebrew does make use of indir.obj.s with its
causitive form of "to teach."
[Shoulson]vaD vIjatlh tlhIngan Hol 'oHbe'qu'bej [Hebrew]'e'
Guido#1, leader of all Guidos ---*
Thank ewe!
