<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2016 12:34 PM, André Müller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABDLMbXDJ7uSVmEFDr6HPME8edo5_2=Q+yOSSSGwUA48L-qpvQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I completely believe that Okrand wasn't considering the effects
of <b>-moH</b> on a verb with <b>-chuq</b> or <b>-'egh.</b>
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 <b>-moH</b> is no different from what I've been saying,
which is that the example violates the stated rules.</p>
<p>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, <i>the stated rules must be
wrong.</i> "Wrong" includes "doesn't take into account using <b>-moH.</b>"<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABDLMbXDJ7uSVmEFDr6HPME8edo5_2=Q+yOSSSGwUA48L-qpvQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div> 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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.</p>
<p>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. Okrand's sentence goes AGAINST common wisdom on the
list. The history of horror and anger on this list regarding
everything <b>-moH</b> is a testament against that even being
remotely possible.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABDLMbXDJ7uSVmEFDr6HPME8edo5_2=Q+yOSSSGwUA48L-qpvQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><i>Adding</i> <b>-moH</b> to a sentence that doesn't have <b>-moH,</b>
and then rearranging the nouns to refer to the same situation, <i>does</i>
change the syntax. Absolutely. I'm not talking about that. When
constructing original sentences including <b>-moH</b><b>,</b> one
does not start with an un<b>-moH</b>'d sentence and add <b>-moH</b>
to it.</p>
<p>The point is that the process of creating an original sentence
with <b>-moH</b> is no different than creating an original
sentence without <b>-moH</b>. 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.<br>
</p>
<p>Now, exactly what that verb MEANS is the realm of semantics. If
it has <b>-moH</b> on it, it means the subject CAUSES the "root"
verb to happen. If it has <b>-chuq</b> 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! (<b>muvchuqmoH
qeylIS</b><i> Kahless causes [someone plural and unspecified] to
join each other</i>; <i>Kahless causes joining up</i>) 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.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABDLMbXDJ7uSVmEFDr6HPME8edo5_2=Q+yOSSSGwUA48L-qpvQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument
(causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other
sleep."<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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}?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"></font></span><span
class="HOEnZb"></span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I would not have accepted <b>vIleghchuqmoH</b><i> I make them
see each other</i> because it violates the rules in TKD about
the subject being plural and the verb prefix indicating no-object,
but I would have accepted <b>jIQong'eghmoH</b><i> I put myself to
sleep</i> because it violates no rules. I would have accepted <b>maleghchuqmoH</b>
<i>we make each other see</i> (not sleep!) for the same reason.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>