[98440] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Wed Apr 16 14:23:34 2014
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20140416071516.a41e5a76f06d90ef255b5a241771595e.6f48429698.wbe@email01.secureserver.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:23:09 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On Apr 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>> From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
> =
>> For me, a verb with {-moH} on it has the subject being the one causing
>> the action of the verb. Nobody has convinced me otherwise,
> =
> Has someone suggested otherwise?
> =
> -- =
> David Trimboli
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> =
I've read lengthy arguments in the past that adding {-moH} to a transitive =
verb gives the verb essentially two subjects, rather than two objects; that=
there is then a subject of causation of the verb and a subject of the acti=
on of the verb, and by that logic, the subject of the verb doesn't change w=
hen adding {-moH}. In other words, if I say {pabmey qaghojmoH}, the subject=
of {ghoj} is not "I", it's "you", since you are the one learning, and "I" =
am the one causing. And since a Type 2 suffix tells you something about the=
subject, if I say {pabmey qaghojqangmoH}, it doesn't mean "I am willing to=
teach you the rules." It means, "I cause you to be willing to learn the ru=
les."
Never mind the normal meaning of the prefix {qa-}, indicating that "I" am t=
he subject, so the rule about Type 2 suffixes applying to the subject dicta=
tes that it should mean "I am willing to teach you the rules."
That is the argument that replayed itself in my mind when I saw THIS argume=
nt about whether a Type 2 verb suffix applies itself to the subject of the =
causation or the subject of the action of the verb (and I'm sure there will=
be arguments about using the term "subject" instead of "agent", etc.).
So, what I was responding to was:
> It's worth noting that TKD 4.2.2. states
> =
> "[Type 2 verb suffixes] express how much choice the subject has about the=
action described or how predisposed the subject is to doing it."
> =
> A strict reading of this, assuming that we've got the right idea of what =
constitutes a "subject" in Klingon, would seem to indicate that a sentence =
such as {choHeghvIpmoH} could only ever mean "You're afraid to make me die.=
", and never "You make me fear death."
> =
> However, there is an apparent contradiction of this later in TKD 4.2.10.:
> {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} <it made him/her willing to die>
> =
> Then, in paq'batlh (paq'raD, Canto 7, Stanzas 6-7):
> =
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 'ach luj molor
> vangmo' molor HoSghajchoHqu' qeylIS
> 'ej SuvqangmoHbej
> =
> Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH Suvchu'meH
> ghaH SuvqangmoHchu'
> molor
> =
> Instead, by doing so,
> Kahless grew mighty and strong,
> And it fueled his will to fight.
> =
> To the death, to the death, to the death,
> It fueled his will to fight
> To the death.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
> However, paq'batlh also contains an example that complies with TKD 4.2.2:
> =
> paq'yav, Canto 6, Stanza 2
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =91ej loDnI=92lI=92 yIjon
> molor DaQapbe=92nISmoH
> yIghoS yIghoS yIghoS
> =
> And get your brother,
> Molor must be stopped
> Go, go, go!
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =
So, judging by canon, if you add {-nIS} or {-qang} to a transitive verb wit=
h {-moH} on it, then all you know is that SOMEBODY needs or is willing to d=
o something or cause something, and you can't tell who because sometimes it=
's the person causing the action of the verb, while other times it's the pe=
rson DOING the action of the verb and there is nothing in the grammar to di=
sambiguate the vague nature of the construction. A is causing it and B is d=
oing it, and one of the two of them is either willing or needing to cause o=
r do it.
So, my take on this is that the problem can't be resolved, and I'll just al=
ways use {-nIS} or {-qang} when referring to the person or thing causing th=
e action of the verb, and if I need that applied to the actual subject of t=
he action of the verb, I'll find some other way to express it, because I fi=
nd the canonical example of {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} and it's ilk to be repulsiv=
ely ugly. I won't say they are wrong because they are canon, so obviously, =
they are, by definition, not wrong, but that doesn't make them less ugly, a=
nd the language is versatile enough to find another road to that intended e=
xpression.
=
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
