[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[SuStel]

On 7/28/2016 12:34 PM, André Müller wrote:
> I think the main "problem" (not really a problem) is that the rule 
> presented in TKD referred specifically just to V+chuq and it's true 
> for that one. Marc Okrand probably really didn't take into account 
> that the verb syntax changes with the addition of {-moH}. So his 
> original wording was supposed to explain just how V and V+chuq differ, 
> to explain what {-chuq} does. So in that way, we could either say you 
> interpreted the rule in TKD too rigidly, or it was formulated without 
> thinking of other valency-changing options. Both can be true at the 
> same time.

I completely believe that Okrand wasn't considering the effects of 
*-moH* on a verb with *-chuq* or *-'egh.* That doesn't change what the 
rule says, and the example sentence violates that rule. Until now we've 
never had any evidence to suggest that both rules for these suffixes 
weren't absolute. So saying the rule obviously doesn't take into account 
using a verb with *-moH* is no different from what I've been saying, 
which is that the example violates the stated rules.

Reading "This suffix is used only with plural subjects... The prefix set 
indicating 'no object' is also used when this suffix is used" as 
requiring plural subjects and no-object prefixes is not a too-rigid 
interpretation. The implications are clear. The subject must be plural 
and a no-object prefix must be used. The example sentence violates one 
of these rules and implies a violation of the other (by having an 
object), which means that, if the example is to be considered 
grammatical, /the stated rules must be wrong./ "Wrong" includes "doesn't 
take into account using *-moH.*"


> No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because 
> it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an 
> issue to anyone.

Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.

No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if 
they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable. Okrand's 
sentence goes AGAINST common wisdom on the list. The history of horror 
and anger on this list regarding everything *-moH* is a testament 
against that even being remotely possible.


> So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax.

/Adding/ *-moH* to a sentence that doesn't have *-moH,* and then 
rearranging the nouns to refer to the same situation, /does/ change the 
syntax. Absolutely. I'm not talking about that. When constructing 
original sentences including *-moH**,* one does not start with an 
un*-moH*'d sentence and add *-moH* to it.

The point is that the process of creating an original sentence with 
*-moH* is no different than creating an original sentence without 
*-moH*. You have a subject which is performing the main action, 
regardless of whether that subject is performing the "root" verb or not. 
You have an object which has the main action performed on it, regardless 
of whether that object is having the "root" verb performed on it or not. 
You put together OBJECT VERB SUBJECT and call it a day. Syntax. This is 
how Okrand seems to construct his sentences.

Now, exactly what that verb MEANS is the realm of semantics. If it has 
*-moH* on it, it means the subject CAUSES the "root" verb to happen. If 
it has *-chuq* on it, it means whoever does perform the "root" verb (NOT 
necessarily the subject as TKD states), must be plural and does it to 
each other. These performers of the root verb may not even appear in the 
sentence! (*muvchuqmoH qeylIS*/Kahless causes [someone plural and 
unspecified] to join each other/; /Kahless causes joining up/) But using 
these suffixes does not mean the basic OVS sentence, which was 
constructed based on syntax, without reference to whether the subject 
was an agent or a causer, without reference to whether the object was an 
agent or a patient, has changed.


> maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - 
> "We make each other sleep."
>
> The last sentence is the thing I raised in my previous message, and I 
> could imagine not everyone agrees that it's possible. Prior to today, 
> would you have not accepted sentences like {vIleghchuqmoH} or 
> {jIQong'eghmoH}?
>

I would not have accepted *vIleghchuqmoH*/I make them see each other/ 
because it violates the rules in TKD about the subject being plural and 
the verb prefix indicating no-object, but I would have accepted 
*jIQong'eghmoH*/I put myself to sleep/ because it violates no rules. I 
would have accepted *maleghchuqmoH* /we make each other see/ (not 
sleep!) for the same reason.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/214eb017/attachment-0017.htm>