[85064] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: A fun application of the "prefix trick"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Wed Sep 17 16:58:19 2008
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <20080917131739.a41e5a76f06d90ef255b5a241771595e.0aaf91ae7a.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Wed, 9/17/08, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> This isn't the prefix trick. That's when the prefix
> of a verb refers to
> an unstated, pronomial indirect object (dative case)
> instead of a direct
> object (accusative
> case).
>
> "The captain gave me the knife."
> Normal: jIHvaD taj nob HoD.
> Prefix trick: taj munob HoD.
>
> The object of {ghoj} is the thing learned, but the object
> of {ghojmoH}
> is the person taught. Therefore, {jIH mughojmoH SoS} is a
> perfectly
> normal sentence. You just elided the pronoun.
>
Not that I want to re-start an old argument, but you say "the object of {ghojmoH} is the person taught" as if this is a settled thing, while I do not recall any definitive rule about what happens with {-moH} and transitive verbs. I personally believe that the object of the unsuffixed verb remains the object of the suffixed verb, and the causee is marked with {-vaD}: {Hol vIghoj} -> {jIHvaD Hol ghojmoH SoS}, and I will believe that until Okrand says explicitly "No".
As I say, I _don't_ want to restart an old argument; I am agreeable to disagreeing. My only point was that by wording it as I did, I avoided the issue all together, since the {mu-} could refer to {jIH} as object OR beneficiary.
-- ter'eS
