[86628] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Oct 6 18:04:18 2009
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:00:42 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <c2ff8bd10910061403q6c679688yec98d76dfc0a25d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Brent Kesler wrote:
> Reading this debate reminds me of valency, the number of arguments a
> verb can have. There are two types of arguments: core arguments, such
> as the object and the subject, and peripheral arguments, which are
> usually marked by a preposition or affix. In Klingon, peripheral
> arguments are marked by -Daq, -vaD, and maybe -'e' (but that's a
> different debate).
Having only read this far, I already know where you're going with this...
> Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):
> 1. tuH yaS
> - The officer is ashamed.
But is it monovalent because of some syntactic rule, or is it monovalent
because of some semantic rule? The evidence suggests that there is
nothing *syntactically* wrong with saying {puq tuH yaS}; it just doesn't
make any *semantic* sense. There is no list of verbs wherein, when you
don't know their meanings, you can still declare that they don't take an
object. When you add {-moH} you're not changing the fundamental syntax
of the sentence; you're just adding a meaning that lets an object make
semantic sense.
> The problem with applying the causative to transitive verbs is that we
> end up with three arguments with only two core slots to put them in,
> so we have to resort to a non-core marking, {-vaD}, for one of them.
We're not "resorting" to anything. The {-vaD} noun of, say, {ghojmoH}
"cause to learn" is the legitimate beneficiary or recipient of the
causing to learn. It never would have been a core argument.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
