<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. 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. Or no one has ever felt the need to use or question such a construction. It's pretty clear that the explanations of {-moH} and {-chuq} somehow clash, but nowhere was it explicitly stated that they couldn't be used together, and it doesn't seem logical to assume that they couldn't be used together either.<br><br></div>But I must correct you: these suffixes explicitly do not only cause semantic change, they clearly do cause syntactic change. If you want to use these terms or ignore them as "rigamarole" is your choice. Other klingonists do find this terminology useful. Why not name things for what they are? Oversimplification and mixing up semantics and syntax doesn't really help. But yes, so as to not exclude anyone, these terms should be defined.<br><br></div>So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax. A former intransitive verb becomes transitive, in other words: a verb with only one actant, like "sleep", becomes a verb with two actants, i.e. "put to sleep", "cause to sleep", "tranquilize". The semantics don't change as much as the syntax changes. The former subject becomes the new object (or causee), and a new argument is introduces as the new subject: the causer.<br></div>Same with {-chuq}: what used to be subject and object now are merged and become the new subject. You can see that because their position is now after the verb, and the agreement prefixes agree with them in the way they agree with subjects of intransitive verbs like "sleep". The semantic change here is that the action is mutual, and is exchanged between the former subject and object.<br><br></div>jIQong. = 1 argument (the sleeper), no object possible, intransitive - "I sleep."<br></div>vIQongmoH. = 2 arguments (causer & causee, who is also the sleeper), transitive - "I make him sleep."<br></div>jIQong'eghmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee), intransitive again - "I make myself sleep."<br><br></div>vIlegh. = 2 arguments (seer & seee), transitive - "I see him."<br></div>maleghchuq. = 1 argument (seer=see as a group), intransitive - "We see each other."<br></div>vIleghchuqmoH. = 2 arguments (causer & causee=seer=see), transitive - "I make them see each other."<br></div><div>maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other sleep."<br><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><br></div><div>- André<br></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-07-28 17:48 GMT+02:00 SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 7/28/2016 11:24 AM, Rhona Fenwick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>jIjatlhpu' jIH:</p>
<p>> if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e.
couldn't normally take</p>
<p>> an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with
{-'eghmoH}</p>
<p>> probably cannot take an object either. How would one
shoehorn an</p>
<p>> explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please
oneself"?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:</p>
<p>> It's not a question of valency, it's a question of
syntactic roles. What is</p>
<p>> having something done to it? That's your object.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. <span>The
two agreement slots of a verb (and thus its valency)
correspond to the syntactic roles of subject and object in
any case.</span> All I'm getting at is that the way {-'egh}
and {-moH} together affect the structure of verb agreement
(and therefore syntactic roles) should imply that if you can't
add an object to a bare verb {X}, you probably can't add one
to the verb {X-'eghmoH} either. Do you disagree?<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><p>I believe I disagree. If I wanted to say <i>I cause the Klingon
to please himself,</i> that could be <b>tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH
jIH.</b> I am doing something. Something is being done to the
Klingon. Subject and object. The <b>-'egh</b> tells me that the
performer of <b>bel</b> (and not the subject, as TKD says)
pleases himself; the <b>-moH</b> tells me that the subject of the
sentence causes the action to happen.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>These suffixes cause only semantic changes. Whatever meaning the
suffixes add to the verb, it still takes one subject that is the
performer of the verb and one object that is the performee of the
verb. If you want to go through a rigamarole of valences and
transitivity and so on, have fun. I feel confident Okrand wasn't
thinking about those things; he was thinking of syntax.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You specifically challenged whether the sentences showed anything
exceptional or new, and that's what I responded to. It's
exceptional in that it explicitly violates two rules about <b>-chuq,
</b>whatever the justification. It's new in that no one ever said
anything about it before.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<pre cols="72">--
SuStel
<a href="http://trimboli.name" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>