[1842] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: DoublePredicateCausitives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Oct 23 04:48:43 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: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 04:45:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
Ok, people, I've been acting conceited and arrogant over this whole DPC
issue.. I was rather obsessed with the idea of pure consistency and
didn't like the fact that there were two methods for solving one problem,
especially since one of those methods (mine) _seemed_ so much more
flexible, accurate, and logical. Of course, I'm not one to talk that way
about causitives-- Klingon is the first languages in which I've dealt
with causitives, so naturally, I needed a slap upside the head to set me
straight on how DPCs work in other languages-- and it seems they work
like MarkShoulson suggested. NickNicholas gave a long spiel about how
they work in Esperanto, and quite frankly, if Esperanto isn't the
ultimate place to begin comparing languages, then Zamenhof must not have
had his head on straight back in 1880-something.
(Zamenhof-- creator of Esperanto, for those of you too lazy to look it up)
So, it looks as tho, when you turn an O-V-S construction into a causitive,
it turns out IO-O-V-S, like Shoulson & Nicholas were trying to tell me:
that the subject of the base verb functions as the IO and the object
remains the object all along. Thus:
English: "[A] cause [B] [verb] [C]."
Klingon: {[B]vaD [C] [verb]moH [A]}
This method may even prove more general than mine. I didn't understand
this before they began showing me parallels in other languages. I guess
I got that "Klingon-isn't-English-or-Hebrew-or-Latin-or-Chinese-or-Lisu-
or-Tagalog-or-Cherokee-or-anything-else" attitude because I've seen some
extremely questionable parallels{qoq} made. E.g., way back when in
August, I believe it was, someone was talking about circumlocutions in
Klingon, when Klingon doesn't even have relative pronouns. And anyways,
we have the {-'e'} suffix for relative clauses now. Oh, well. I'll have
to twist my point of view a little. Normally my principles don't allow
me to form an opinion without seeing both sides of an issue, or if I
do happen to have an opinion, to consider the opposition's perspective.
This time, however, I don't think my principles were kicking in.
Oh, well, it makes sense now. My head's out of the clouds.
this is Guido#1, leader of ALL Guidos, signing off ---------*
Thank ewe very much! God bless America and may the force be with ewe!
