[tlhIngan Hol] qIH and -chuq

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 17:58:13 PDT 2019


[SuStel's latest message arrived just as I was about to send this. So there
may be some overlap. But in any case, since he's being accused of being
unclear, I just wanted to say that (I think) I understand what he wrote.
Whether it's correct or not is another thing, but I don't think it's
unclear.]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 01:50, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2019, at 2:31 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> In a sentence without *-moH,* the situation is very simple. The subject
> is always the agent/theme/experiencer. Easy.
>
>
> “Easy”? You’re introducing terms that you seem to think are widely
> understood, but your use of them doesn’t give much information about what
> you mean. From your earlier attempts to explain your understanding of
> Klingon grammar, I was under the impression that agents and experiencers
> were different things, and I thought themes were something else as well.
> Searching the web, I find lists of noun roles that include those terms, and
> nowhere do I see them equated.
>

They're not being equated. They are all things which the subject of a verb
could be, depending on the verb (including suffixes). The subject of verbs
which describe performing an action, like {qIp} or {tInmoH}, are agents.
Note that one of those verbs has a {-moH}, and the other doesn't. The
subjects of verbs which describe a state or change to the subject, like
{bel} or {'Ij}, are experiencers.


> I still don’t understand the problem you have with calling the thing that
> causes the action the “subject of causation”. You tried to correct it by
> saying that “the subject causes”.  What’s the line you are drawing between
> them?
>

He's not drawing any line between "subject of causation" and the subject
causing something to happen. He's rebutting the idea, which some people
have and which apparently leads them to become very confused, that verbs of
the form {V-moH} have two subjects.

The mistaken idea is this: {VmoH S} means that S is the "subject of
causation" of {V T}, where T is the "subject of the verb V" (T may or may
not be the same as S). People with this mistaken idea then go about trying
to find a consistent set of rules for identifying T mechanically, i.e.,
syntactically, and get very frustrated that such a set of rules cannot be
found. That is, no matter what you claim the rules are for obtaining T, one
can find either some logical inconsistency with it or a canon example to
contradict it.

When he says that {-moH} on the verb means that the subject causes
something to happen, he means that *the subject* (the only one, since
there's one per verb) causes something to happen. You're reading this as
his drawing a distinction between "subject of causation" and "subject which
causes something", but that's not what he's doing. He's claiming that
"subject of causation" is nonsensical as a concept, because it mixes syntax
and semantics, even when the subject of the verb (with {-moH}) happens to
be causing something.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190417/e50dd466/attachment.htm>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list