<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-07-28 20:10 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">
<br><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 7/28/2016 12:34 PM, André Müller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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>
</span><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><span class="">
</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I can agree with you that this is sort of the same thing. I would say the rule was ill-formulated, because it could lead to your interpretation. If Okrand were to write a new complete grammar, he would have to change this sentence, so it's more clear. <br></div><div><br></div><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=""><p>
</p>
<blockquote 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>
</span><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. </p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Who tells them? You? ;)<br></div><div>Anyone else? Well... might be, of course. But I disagree that it goes against common wisdom. I agree that {-moH} is difficult, but mostly when applied to transitive stems. That's still tricky. But if you know how to use both suffixes in question, assuming that their use together is ungrammatical is... quite a stretch. But you seem to disagree. Fine. Now you know it's possible. The sentence wasn't a surprise for me when I added it to my own database.<br><br></div><div>In fact, I do believe that if you look closer at other wordings in TKD, with respect to things like "subject", "object", etc., then you will probably find more such "exceptions" that others wouldn't see as such. These things happen in real-life grammatical descriptions, too, of course.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p>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><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote 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>
</span><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, absolutely right. In your head, while making a sentence with {-moH}, being a fluent or conversational speaker, you don't need to reorder the elements in your head consciously. So you don't consciously change the syntax. In the grammar of Klingon, the suffix does, though (and Noam Chomsky would argue, that subconsciously you do to, but let's not get into that, I don't support his theories on language). So the syntactical change happens inside the language, in the grammar, not really consciously in our heads. And I have no doubt that Marc also doesn't think about it, usually, when writing sentences. Except probably in the sentence about Worf's sash (which works very different from typical "natural" causative constructions and this was probably done deliberately). <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p>
</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><span class="">
</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually this is something where semantics and syntax overlap. The performer (agent) of the root verb... the underlying subject of the root verb... that affects both syntax and semantics equally. But what the "basic sentence" is here, is a matter of interpretation, of course. As seen from the view point of a speaker of Klingon, you could argue that {muvchuqmoH} is already the basic element, retrieved from the speakers mind, and then applied in the same way as if it were a simple word like {Sop} (where the direct object isn't necessary either). That's how speakers form sentences, it's not how you would describe a language to work, though. If you explain the sentence to a learner, or to someone who doesn't know anything about Klingon, you'd first explain the meaning of {muv}, then what {-chuq} does to the verb, and then what {-moH} does. And a beginner in Klingon will perhaps do these changes in his head... "join... uhm... each other... uhm... make... makes some people join each other".<br><br></div><div>But yeah, we were speaking about 2 different levels where "syntactic change" is happening - in the structure of the language, the grammar, the deep stuff... or in the head of a fluent speaker.<br></div><div> </div><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="">
<blockquote 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><font color="#888888"></font></span><span></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>
</span><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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It would be interesting to see how other speakers would have judged it. Not for the sake of being right or wrong in my assumption, but just to see how common the assumption or literal interpretation is. I think most people would interpret "subject" in the rule as meaning "subject of the root verb", not "subject of the entire verb complex after applying all possible suffixes". Would also be interesting (at least for me) to check non-canon corpora to see if it actually has been used before by people on the list, but simply no one ever noticed anything weird about it (like I didn't).</div><div><br></div><div>Now I wonder how to say "We make each other see each other." ;)<br><br></div><div>- André <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</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></div>