[tlhIngan Hol] Thoughts on {-moH}

[SuStel]

On 12/8/2016 2:58 PM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 08.12.2016 um 17:42 schrieb SuStel:
>>> {matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give"
>>> We all agree on that, right?
>>
>> Not necessarily. p/aq'batlh/ gives us the sentence *ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je
>> vIghojmoH*/I will... teach him life and death./
>
> Don't forget that PB is not always 100% to be taken as a guide. In 
> this example, I think that ghojmoH is taken literally as "teach".

Why? Because you favor that interpretation? Do you have any reason to 
expect that *ghojmoH *isn't being treated as *ghoj + -moH*? Remember, 
Okrand says that verb+suffix is not treated like a new verb.


> Either
> A) The object of ghojmoH is the person learning, so here it is "life 
> and death"
> or
> B) maybe the use of -vaD takes over the object of the moH-ed verb?

The object of the verb here is explicitly *yIn Hegh je.* That is not in 
dispute; it's right there on the page.

The role of *-vaD* is given multiple names in /TKD /(beneficiary, 
indirect object)/,/ but it is all basically this: the noun is in some 
way affected indirectly by the action of the verb. The exact nature of 
how the noun is affected depends on the meaning of the verb. *puqwI'vaD 
paqmey vIje'*/I buy books for my child /(the buying doesn't directly 
affect my child; he just gets the books afterward as a result of the 
buying); *Qu'vaD lI'*//*De' */the information//is useful for the 
mission/**(the information's being useful doesn't directly affect the 
mission; but the mission will experience an indirect effect because of 
the information).

When you add *-moH*, you're telling the listener "the subject isn't 
doing the verb; the subject is causing something else to do the verb." 
*-moH* does /not/ tell you "the subject causes the object to do the verb."

So if we have *torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh,* we interpret it as follows: 
*Qugh* causes giving to happen, but is not the giver; *matlh* is given 
(because nowhere does /TKD/ say that *-moH* does anything but change the 
role of the subject); and *torgh* is in some way indirectly affected by 
the giving (being indirectly affected by giving usually means something 
is given to you).

BUT... /noun/*-vaD nob* doesn't /have/ to mean "give to /noun/"; that 
indirect effect could refer to something else. Maybe Torg is the captain 
of their sportsball team and Maltz is really irritating, so Kruge gives 
Maltz away to another team for Torg's ease of mind. This is not what one 
would normally expect in seeing /noun/*-vaD nob,* but it's not impossible.

ALSO BUT... we see verbs of state or quality add objects all the time 
whenever they get *-moH* on them. Why don't we say **tIjwI'ghomvaD 
jIchenmoH* instead of *tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH*? This is where it gets 
unclear, and I think the answer is that when an action doesn't act upon 
a noun the indirect object "collapses" into the object position because 
it's like a direct object of the entire formation /verb/*-moH.* Instead 
of a "direct object" in the "object" position, an "indirect object" 
fills it. This is what lojmIt tI'wI' nuv liked to call the "object of 
causation," though I think that misses the nuance of what's going on here.


>
>> By the same pattern, one
>> can say that *matlh nobmoH Qugh* means /Kruge causes (someone) to give
>> Maltz (to someone)./ But I think it can ALSO mean /Kruge causes Maltz to
>> give./
>
> Well, the latter is definitely sure. I had a look at TKD again now, 
> and it says "[moH] indicates that the subject is causing a change of 
> condition"
>
> The given example {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH} is translated as "I cause a 
> boarding party to be formed".
>
> literally translated that would be {chen ghom 'e' vI-[cause]}
>
> a parallel to this is {matlh vInobmoH} "I cause maltz to give"
>
> Exchanging the subject and adapting the suffixes gives
> {matlh nobmoH Qugh} "Kruge makes maltz give"
>
> Following my above mentioned twist, this is {nob matlh 'e' [cause] Qugh}
>
> The object of the nob in that phrase comes first, so
> {taj nob matlh 'e' [cause] Qugh}
> and that's why I replaced the sentence back and got:
> {taj matlh nobmoH Qugh}
>
> And now, to marc the topic, I've added the -'e'
> {taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}
>
> I still think that's a good workaround.

I can understand it, but it's not what Okrand has done.


>
>> Yes, this is the classic problem, and the way Okrand has resolved it is
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Can you tell me wher to find examples for 
> this (not nitpicking intended, I really wanna know and understand.)

There are only the two unambiguous examples I've been bringing up:

*tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH
*/He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. /(SkyBox S20)

*petaQvam vIqopbej / QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH / 'ej 'oy' SIQ ghaH
*/I will bring this p'takh to justice / And teach him life and death / 
The slow and painful way!/ (PB)

There are other examples of *-moH* on potentially transitive verbs, but 
they're all ambiguously unprefixed or prefixed in a way that could 
indicate the prefix trick (so we don't know whether they're referring to 
a direct or indirect object; e.g. *HIQoymoH*/let me hear!/).

**

>
>> has been to (1) make the causer the subject, (2) make the causee the
>> indirect object with *-vaD*, and (3) keep the thing acted upon as the
>> direct object.
>>
>> Following Okrand's pattern, the sentence would be *matlhvaD nuq nobmoH
>> Qugh.*
>
> {matlhvaD lojmIt poSmoH Qugh.}
> Does Kruge open the door for Maltz, (my interpretation)
> or does Kruge cause Maltz to open the door? (your interpretation) o_O
>
> or can it be both and it's this ambiguity that lead this discussion? 

It can be both, I believe. At least until Okrand clarifies.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161208/44db45f8/attachment-0003.htm>