[tlhIngan Hol] vech

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Sun Jun 20 18:19:10 PDT 2021

This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}.

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

> On Jun 17, 2021, at 9:51 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 9:16 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote: 
>>>> So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say {nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and 
>>>> not {vIvechmoH}. 
>> Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel: 
>>> Was there any discussion about using a third-person object prefix along 
>>> with the -chuq suffix? 
>> That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on this. 
>> We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed 
>> automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb 
>> {vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the {-chuq} 
>> suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the 
>> sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think about the 
>> question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what TKD. 
>> Of course we all know that TKD is not complete. 
>> For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand said 
>> that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about the 
>> usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard [vechchuq] 
>> as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible. 
> I, for one, have no trouble understanding the restriction on prefixes and reflexive suffixes as meaning, "Use of these reflexive suffixes replaces the presence of an object, so use the appropriate prefix." Given that Klingon is very flexible with objects, if some other object that represents something other than the reflexive entity is used, it should include the appropriate prefix.
>> In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What about 
>> "I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not? 
>> --- 
>> Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix {-moH}. 
>> TKD gives this small example: 
>> {HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)" 
>> The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence (i.e. the 
>> -moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is 
>> "something", not "me".
> Not exactly. The "(something)" is in parentheses to indicate that there's an implication of hearing "something," but that it isn't actually stated in the sentence. Indeed, Kruge's line in the movie is "Let me hear."
> We must remember that what Klingon considers an "object" is never rigorously defined. In fact, it seems that the role of "object" can be a number of different things, including direct object (De' vIghojmoH I teach the information) and indirect object (puq vIghojmoH I teach the child). We also know that direct and indirect objects can inhabit the same sentence (puqvaD De' vIghojmoH I teach the child the information), and that the verb prefix can sometimes refer to objects that aren't present (De' mughojmoH He/she teaches me the information).
> So I don't find it at all surprising that we can have a sentence with a reflexive suffix, causing an object to "disappear" into the verb, and then add another object referring to something else.
>> So based on that, I would conclude that when you 
>> have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being 
>> influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself is. 
>> That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}. 
> I don't think you need such a specific set of criteria. It's not that you need -moH; it's just that -moH adds a whole new semantic role (causer) to the sentence, and the causer may be acting upon or towards a completely different direct or indirect object than the agent/experiencer. It's kind of an object free-for-all. The only real question is which object gets priority, and it seems to be that the direct object that the agent is acting upon has priority over any indirect object receiving the action (which gets pushed into the adverbial soup at the front with a -vaD added to it). Meanwhile, elided first- and second-person indirect objects can optionally hijack the prefix.
> With all that going on, it's no wonder the rule of "use a no-object prefix with the reflexive suffixes" gets overridden.
>> (Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate literally: "I 
>> moH THEM to [vechchuq]") 
> Say rather: -moH focuses your attention on the causer, not the doer, but if you can squeeze the doer in there somewhere, go for it.
> -- 
> 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/20210620/6b0e1817/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list