[tlhIngan Hol] Joining two questions with {pagh}

[SuStel]

On 1/29/2019 11:23 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:14, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>> This flexibility of objects is why you can simultaneously have 
>> *qaja'pu'*/I told you/ and *lut vIja'pu'*/I told the story./ In the 
>> first case there's no direct object to get in the way of the indirect 
>> object being the syntactic object of the verb. In the second the verb 
>> has an explicit direct object. If you wanted to say whom you told the 
>> story to, you would say *puqvaD lut vIja'.* This isn't even a *-moH* 
>> issue. Both direct and indirect objects can go in the object 
>> position, but if you have both the direct object wins and the 
>> indirect object goes to *-vaD.*
>
> Interesting analysis. I actually like this as an explanation for the 
> prefix trick as well.


Exactly! The two aren't quite the same thing, since the prefix trick 
only works with first- and second-person indirect objects, and only 
works when the indirect object isn't actually stated. In *SoQ **qajatlh* 
/I give a speech to you,/ the prefix is made to agree with an unstated 
indirect object of *SoH, *but as soon as you state the indirect object, 
the prefix has to agree with the stated direct object: *SoHvaD SoQ 
vIjatlh.*


> You have two objects as well, but since the indirect object is 
> indicated by the prefix, neither needs to take -vaD, although the 
> unstated (because it’s encoded in the prefix) object is the one that 
> normally would. It’s similar to your example of qaja'pu' which has an 
> “indirect” object only, except with an explicit “direct” object as well.


The thing about all the *ja'* examples in canon is that not one of them 
is conclusive. We have lots of examples like *qaja'pu',* but never one 
that is *SoH qaja'pu'.* Once we got *ja'* in /paq'batlh,/ I think the 
example was *lut vIja'* or something like that, it was clear to me that 
sentences like *qaja'pu'* are either the prefix trick in action or/that 
it doesn't actually matter all that much whether the object is direct or 
indirect./ Then we saw *ghojmoH* flip-flop the same way.


> For transitive verbs with -moH I’m still trying to wrap my head around 
> exactly what’s happening there (e.g. puqvaD nIQ vISopmoH) but I’m 
> happy to handwave it away with “objects are flexible” magic dust for now.


*puqvaD nIQ vISopmoH*/I make the child eat breakfast.
/

The action of the sentence revolves around *Sop* /eat./ With this verb, 
someone is eating and something is being eaten. If the something that is 
being eaten is mentioned, it /must/ be the object of the verb, no matter 
what suffixes the verb has on it. It is being acted upon directly, so it 
is the object. Here, *nIQ* /breakfast/ is that object, a direct object.

Now, since I am the subject and I am causing something to happen, I am 
not the one eating. I am causing this situation to happen, and my target 
for all this is the *puq */child./ Therefore, the child is the indirect 
object.

Or to put it another way: I cause eating to occur. Breakfast is eaten. 
The child is the recipient of what I'm doing, by being made to eat.

Or to put it yet another way: *nIQ vISopmoH* /I cause breakfast to be 
eaten./ I target the child with this action; the child receives this 
package of being made to eat. *puqvaD.*


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190129/a008aa5f/attachment-0016.htm>