<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 11:24 AM, Rhona Fenwick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SG2PR0301MB09847E4514A37E00A9A28BCFAA000@SG2PR0301MB0984.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
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>
<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.<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>