[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

Thu Jul 28 08:03:03 PDT 2016

Yes, I think there's nothing wrong with {vIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause him to hit
himself" or {vIqIpchuqmoH} "I cause them to hit each other".

Actually, there is something that might be interesting: We know that
sometimes suffixes (with the exception of rovers) refer just back to the
original verb root, and sometimes refer to the stem (i.e. everything
preceding it). Usually there's no big difference in interpretation,
although we did wonder before about sentences that could not be interpreted
"linearly" (i.e. reading them from right to left). I can't reproduce such
an example now, because my computer with my Klingon sentence collection is
broken (it was something with {-nIS}, where the scope of "must" included
something after the {-nIS}, if I remember right)...

So in a word containing {-'eghmoH}, the order is ambiguous, if all agents
are third person, because we get a zero prefix then. So, {qIp'eghmoH} could
mean 1) "A causes B to hit himself." or 2) "A causes himself to hit B."
With other persons involved this becomes more clear, as it would be
{vIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause him to hit himself." and {jIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause
myself to hit (him)." - actually I believe the latter sentence is strictly
intransitive and doesn't even imply that I hit someone or something (the
verb semantics do, though). So, assuming that {'em} "to vomit" is
transitive (which we don't know, but let's take it as an example), I can
make myself vomit: {jI'em'eghmoH}, but I cannot make myself vomit the
poison I acidentally swallowed: *{tar jI'em'eghmoH}. One might have to say
{tar vI'emmeH jI'em'eghmoH}.

So a verb containing {-chuq} or {-'egh} can be transitive, and a verb
containing {-moH} can be intransitive, depending on if one of the other
suffixes increases or decreases its valency, respectively. The rigid slot
structure of Klingon cloaks the logical order of interpretation, but
context and the verb prefixes usually help.

- André

2016-07-28 16:41 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:

> what about the :
>
> {vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself".
>
> is it acceptable ?
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Terrence Donnelly
> <terrence.donnelly at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to
> unite"
> > v. "cause to unite each other"? The latter almost sounds like they unite
> > without Kahless as the impetus for their union.
> >
> > ter'eS
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com>
> > To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?
> >
> > It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us
> > would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the
> valency,
> > making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix,
> > increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs
> become
> > transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another
> > oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash).
> >
> > Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding
> {-moH}
> > naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something
> like
> > "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two
> > suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've
> > formed the sentence the same way.
> >
> > Schematically:
> > S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH})
> > S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh})
> > S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq})
> > S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH})
> >
> > S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural
> > entities.
> >
> > I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed
> > that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence.
> >
> > - André
> >
> > 2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:
> >
> > On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> >
> > read this :
> >
> > Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
> > kahless united the tribes of kronos
> >
> > ..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an
> > object ?
> >
> > according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix
> > must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq}
> > can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the
> > recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and
> > then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
> >
> > now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the
> > {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the
> > combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
> >
> >
> > Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting
> > evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this
> > sentence comes from paq'batlh.)
> > Apparently, the rules governing -chuq—that it is only used with plural
> > subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the
> > semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb
> > describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the
> > subject—in this case the -moH tells us that the subject causes the verb
> > instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.
> >
> > --
> > SuStel
> > http://trimboli.name
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> > tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/96eac226/attachment-0001.htm>