<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div>jIjatlhpu' jIH:<br>
> if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e. couldn't normally take<br>
> an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH}<br>
> probably cannot take an object either. How would one shoehorn an<br>
> explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?<br>
<br>
mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:<br>
> It's not a question of valency, it's a question of syntactic roles. What is<br>
> having something done to it? That's your object.<br>
<br>
jIjatlhqa'pu' jIH:<br>
> I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. The two<br>
> agreement slots of a verb (and thus its valency) correspond to the<br>
> syntactic roles of subject and object in any case.<br>
> All I'm getting at is that the way {-'egh} and {-moH} together affect<br>
> the structure of verb agreement (and therefore syntactic roles)<br>
> should imply that if you can't add an object to a bare verb {X}, you<br>
> probably can't add one to the verb {X-'eghmoH} either. Do you disagree?<br>
<br>
jang SuStel, jatlh:<br>
> I believe I disagree. If I wanted to say I cause the Klingon to please<br>
> himself, that could be tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH.<br>
<br>
I won't rehash this, as ghunchu'wI' has already pointed out that this is problematic.<br>
<br>
jatlhtaH:<br>
> These suffixes cause only semantic changes.<br>
<br>
That's not true. {-'egh} doesn't cause a syntactic change per se, requiring only a morphological change in agreement, but {-moH} adds a semantic role to the root verb and forces both syntactic and morphological changes as a result.<br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> Whatever meaning the suffixes add to the verb, it still takes one<br>
> subject that is the performer of the verb and one object that is the<br>
> performee of the verb.<br>
<br>
Assuming, as you said earlier, that an object can be provided to a given verb. What's the object of {Doq'eghmoH}?<br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> If you want to go through a rigamarole of valences and transitivity<br>
> and so on, have fun. I feel confident Okrand wasn't thinking about<br>
> those things; he was thinking of syntax.<br>
<br>
Well, Marc is a trained linguist and so I won't dismiss the possibility he was thinking about both, but that's a moot point. In either case, I don't appreciate your dismissive tone here. I'm not intending to do anything with these terms other than find useful
ways to describe what's going on, just as you are. <br>
<br>
taH:<br>
> You specifically challenged whether the sentences showed anything<br>
> exceptional or new, and that's what I responded to. It's exceptional<br>
> in that it explicitly violates two rules about -chuq, whatever the<br>
> justification. It's new in that no one ever said anything about it before.<br>
<br>
But we have! I raised this example back in 2012 when we were going over similar issues about {-'eghmoH} as it relates to {tuQ} (http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00069.html), and several of us, including you, discussed that example explicitly
at that time. For some reason your messages on the topic are not saved to the KLI list archives, but a couple others (one replying directly to you) still exist:<br>
<br>
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00077.html<br>
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html<br>
<br>
The thread was called, ironically, "Semantic roles with -moH... again".<br>
<br>
QeS 'utlh</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>