[tlhIngan Hol] qIH and -chuq
Will Martin
willmartin2 at mac.com
Tue Apr 16 13:07:45 PDT 2019
I apologize for the apparent error in terminology.
To give my wording to an explanation that SuStel gave earlier, trying to show evidence that to some extent, “I get it,” the suffix {-moH} changes the interpretation of what the prefix means. This is not unique. The suffixes {-lu’}, {-‘egh}, and {-chuq} change how we interpret the prefix, and Okrand went out of his way to explain the details of how those suffixes work and their effect on the prefix’s meaning. To understand {-moH}, we basically have to combine the verb with {-moH} BEFORE we interpret the prefix (or ANY other affix, for that matter).
Since he didn’t give a grammatical explanation for the roles of subject and object with {-moH}, given the limited examples he gave in TKD, it appeared to imply that the subject role caused the action or state and the object role did the action or state, but as it turns out, it’s more complicated than that.
With {-moH}, “be hot” changes meaning to “cause-the-state-of-being-hot”, and THEN you process the other affixes.
So, {jItuj'eghmoH} means, “I cause-the-state-of-being-hot myself.”
Similarly, {nuvvaDvetlh tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} means, “For the benefit of that guy, I cause-learning the Klingon language.”
And given the example in question, {puqpu’ma’ DIqIHchuqnISmoH}, "We must cause-meeting-for-the-first-time each other our children."
I used to object to this weird way that {-moH} gloms itself onto the verb’s meaning in order [cue in the ST:TOS intro theme music] to boldly do new things with the prefix that no suffix has done before, but it’s obvious that canon dictates this is how it works.
And that’s not really fair to say that.
{-lu’} changes how the prefix works. {-egh} and {-chuq} change how the prefix works. The issue here is that Okrand went out of his way to explain exactly how these suffixes change the meaning of the prefix. By comparison, he didn’t do squat to explain how {-moH} would change the way that a verb relates to its direct object.
Before {-moH}, a {ghojwI’} is one who learns and a {ghojmoHwI’} is one who causes learning. Before {-moH}, {tlhIngan Hol ghoj ghojwI’}. The language isn’t learning. The student is learning. But toss in {-moH}, and it gets weird. {ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}. The teacher causes-learning the student. {thIngan Hol ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’.} The teacher causes-learning the Klingon language. [Ick, but, well, okay.] {ghojwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}. The teacher causes-learning Klingon language for the student.
The TKD explanation of this was remarkably incomplete. Likely, it was written before Okrand decided how to handle ditransitive settings of a transitive verb + {-moH}, and I, for one, was thrown for a loop when his final canon examples came out.
I’d argue that it should also make sense to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’.} "As for the Klingon language, the teacher causes-learning the student," simply because it’s okay to say {ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}, and we’re just adding the topic of that causing-learning. There is no canon backing up this assertion. It’s just simple to understand using normal interpretation of Klingon grammar. It might seem stylistically odd, but there’s no reason to expect that a Klingon would wonder what it meant.
I doubt I would have had a problem with it if Okrand had presented the new canon with an expanded explanation of the grammar. Instead, he chose to imply unexpected rules of grammar without stating them. That’s always been the root of my problem with this area of grammar.
It’s like being told, as a four year old, that “gooder” is not a word in English. It’s “better”. And don’t get me started on “goodest”…
There’s the way it ought to be, and then there’s the way it is.
There’s the issue of parsing. Most of the time, we see the prefix and we know who is doing the action or experiencing the state, and optionally to whom or to what the action is being done.
If the prefix implies a subject and an object and the verb is stative or otherwise is not supportive of having an object, we need to look ahead for {-moH} to make it make sense. If there is no {-moH}, then we need to see if the prefix has a third-person-singular object and hope we find {-lu’} as we continue to parse. If we don’t find either {-moH} or {-lu’} with a stative or otherwise intransitive verb with a prefix implying a direct object, then either we are reading poetry, or there’s been a grammatical error. [No, there is no discernible difference. Rely on context.]
If {-‘egh} or {-chuq} are there, we have to go back to the prefix and reinterpret it, assuming it is a “no object” prefix. We then take the indicated subject as both subject and object, with {-chuq} for plural subject, and {-'egh} usually for singular, though it could be plural if the group consists of individuals doing the action to themselves instead of to each other. It can be important to understand the difference between an invitation to {manga’chuq} and an invitation to {manga’’egh}, lest one show up unprepared.
[Perhaps that’s a mental image you’d like to be able to un-see. Too late, now.]
If the prefix implies a subject and an object, and we find {-chuq} or {-‘egh}, then we need to withhold interpretation until we’ve processed more suffixes, because {-moH} or {-lu’} OUGHT to be there.
If {-moH} is there, then if {-chuq} or {-'egh} is there, we need to forget anything we assumed about the prefix and start over, thinking about {-moH} BEFORE adding in {-‘egh} or {-chuq}.
If we hit {-lu’}, and we haven’t had {-‘egh}, {-chuq}, or {-moH}, then we check to make sure there’s a third person singular object indicated and reinterpret the prefix. If the prefix doesn’t fit {lu’}, then we’re reading poetry, or there’s been an error.
If we HAVE already been through {-chuq} or {-‘egh} and {-moH}, then our heads explode. Game over.
“In that room, one teaches each other to speak Klingon.”
{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol lughojchuqmoHlu’.}
or perhaps
{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol’e’ jeSwI’pu’vaD lughojchuqmoHlu’.} [Cue sound effects for the Lemmings game after clicking on the Time Bomb button]
[and one wonders why Bingon and other attempts to programmatically translate Klingon tend to render frequently erroneous results.]
So, yes, I can use {-moH} in the full glory of it’s functionality.
I just wish Okrand had done a gooder job of explaining it.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
> On Apr 16, 2019, at 2:31 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> On 4/16/2019 1:55 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2019 12:59 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>>> We don’t seem to have a problem with the idea that {jI-} means the same entity is the subject of causation AND the subject of being hot, even though there is no explicit explanation of how this works
>> You want to understand?
>>
>> Never say the phrase "subject of the causation" again.
>>
> ...So we can flail about helplessly with no syntactic formula for -moH given to us by Okrand, or we can deduce the rules and why they are what they are. Which is what we've been doing all along.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://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/20190416/71726bc0/attachment-0031.htm>
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol
mailing list