[86644] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The meaning of -moH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Oct 8 11:49:27 2009
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:47:14 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <be1.66dca9e5.37ff5c4f@wmconnect.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/8/2009 08:14:55 Eastern Daylight Time,
> qunchuy@alcaco.net writes:
>
>> When introducing verb prefixes, the example
>> verb is {Qong} "sleep" and only the no-object prefixes are listed.
>> The text then goes on to say that those prefixes are also used when
>> an object is possible but not stated. I infer from the wording that
>> such prefixes are *not* used with {Qong}.
>
> mumISmoH mu'tlheghmeylIj.
> First you say only no-object prefixes are used with {Qong}, then you say
> such prefixes are *not* used with {Qong}.
I think he means that the no-object prefixes on {Qong} cannot refer to
general or vague objects the way they can on verbs like, say, {Sop}.
However, this is a semantic difference, not a syntactic one.
Overall, I agree with the point: there is some evidence that syntactic
differences exist among verbs, though the evidence is not conclusive, or
even necessarily convincing. If true, verbs may fall into one of three
classes: verbs of action that can take objects; verbs of action that
cannot take objects; and verbs of quality, which cannot take objects. In
this case, it is possible that the use of {-moH} may depend on the class
of verb: for those two classes that cannot take objects, {-moH} changes
the verb to the class of action verbs that take objects (with the
"cause-ee" as the object); for the class of action verbs that take
objects, our sole example suggests that {-moH} does NOT change the
verb's class, or even the object.
Thinking about it further, I realize that the example in TKD,
{maghoSchoHmoHneS'a'}, would be an example of a verb of action that can
take an object (but does not do so here), yet it does not follow the
rule I stated above.
It's this exceptional behavior that I wonder about. If there *is* no
syntactic difference between verbs, if the only reason a verb of quality
doesn't take an object is because none makes any sense, then the only
thing the addition of {-moH} does is to change the meaning of the verb
into one that lets an object make sense. No verbal class-changing is
required to explain it; all verbs are simply verbs. That we do not know
the appropriate object—or lack thereof—of every verb is due to our lack
of knowledge, not a flaw in the argument.
In the semantic scheme, a verb of quality of a subject changes meaning
to a verb about the application of a quality to an object. A verb of
action without an object changes meaning to a verb about the compulsion
of action by an object. A verb of action that affects an object changes
meaning to a verb about compulsion of an action that affects that object
(according to our only example). We cannot learn these rules through the
syntax stated in the grammar; we must learn them by observation of what
existing sentences mean.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
