[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

Thu Jul 28 11:55:03 PDT 2016

2016-07-28 20:10 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

>
> 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.*"
>

Yes, I can agree with you that this is sort of the same thing. I would say
the rule was ill-formulated, because it could lead to your interpretation.
If Okrand were to write a new complete grammar, he would have to change
this sentence, so it's more clear.

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.
>

Who tells them? You? ;)
Anyone else? Well... might be, of course. But I disagree that it goes
against common wisdom. I agree that {-moH} is difficult, but mostly when
applied to transitive stems. That's still tricky. But if you know how to
use both suffixes in question, assuming that their use together is
ungrammatical is... quite a stretch. But you seem to disagree. Fine. Now
you know it's possible. The sentence wasn't a surprise for me when I added
it to my own database.

In fact, I do believe that if you look closer at other wordings in TKD,
with respect to things like "subject", "object", etc., then you will
probably find more such "exceptions" that others wouldn't see as such.
These things happen in real-life grammatical descriptions, too, of course.

> 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.
>

Yes, absolutely right. In your head, while making a sentence with {-moH},
being a fluent or conversational speaker, you don't need to reorder the
elements in your head consciously. So you don't consciously change the
syntax. In the grammar of Klingon, the suffix does, though (and Noam
Chomsky would argue, that subconsciously you do to, but let's not get into
that, I don't support his theories on language). So the syntactical change
happens inside the language, in the grammar, not really consciously in our
heads. And I have no doubt that Marc also doesn't think about it, usually,
when writing sentences. Except probably in the sentence about Worf's sash
(which works very different from typical "natural" causative constructions
and this was probably done deliberately).

> 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.
>

Actually this is something where semantics and syntax overlap. The
performer (agent) of the root verb... the underlying subject of the root
verb... that affects both syntax and semantics equally. But what the "basic
sentence" is here, is a matter of interpretation, of course. As seen from
the view point of a speaker of Klingon, you could argue that {muvchuqmoH}
is already the basic element, retrieved from the speakers mind, and then
applied in the same way as if it were a simple word like {Sop} (where the
direct object isn't necessary either). That's how speakers form sentences,
it's not how you would describe a language to work, though. If you explain
the sentence to a learner, or to someone who doesn't know anything about
Klingon, you'd first explain the meaning of {muv}, then what {-chuq} does
to the verb, and then what {-moH} does. And a beginner in Klingon will
perhaps do these changes in his head... "join... uhm... each other...
uhm... make... makes some people join each other".

But yeah, we were speaking about 2 different levels where "syntactic
change" is happening - in the structure of the language, the grammar, the
deep stuff... or in the head of a fluent speaker.

> 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.
>

It would be interesting to see how other speakers would have judged it. Not
for the sake of being right or wrong in my assumption, but just to see how
common the assumption or literal interpretation is. I think most people
would interpret "subject" in the rule as meaning "subject of the root
verb", not "subject of the entire verb complex after applying all possible
suffixes". Would also be interesting (at least for me) to check non-canon
corpora to see if it actually has been used before by people on the list,
but simply no one ever noticed anything weird about it (like I didn't).

Now I wonder how to say "We make each other see each other." ;)

- André

> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eb15f3e8/attachment-0017.htm>