<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 12/8/2016 2:58 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">Am 08.12.2016 um 17:42 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">{matlh nobmoH
Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give"
<br>
We all agree on that, right?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not necessarily. p/aq'batlh/ gives us the sentence *ghaHvaD yIn
Hegh je
<br>
vIghojmoH*/I will... teach him life and death./
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Don't forget that PB is not always 100% to be taken as a guide. In
this example, I think that ghojmoH is taken literally as "teach".
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Why? Because you favor that interpretation? Do you have any
reason to expect that <b>ghojmoH </b>isn't being treated as <b>ghoj
+ -moH</b>? Remember, Okrand says that verb+suffix is not
treated like a new verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">Either
<br>
A) The object of ghojmoH is the person learning, so here it is
"life and death"
<br>
or
<br>
B) maybe the use of -vaD takes over the object of the moH-ed verb?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The object of the verb here is explicitly <b>yIn Hegh je.</b>
That is not in dispute; it's right there on the page.</p>
<p>The role of <b>-vaD</b> is given multiple names in <i>TKD </i>(beneficiary,
indirect object)<i>,</i> but it is all basically this: the noun is
in some way affected indirectly by the action of the verb. The
exact nature of how the noun is affected depends on the meaning of
the verb. <b>puqwI'vaD paqmey vIje'</b><i> I buy books for my
child </i>(the buying doesn't directly affect my child; he just
gets the books afterward as a result of the buying); <b>Qu'vaD
lI'</b><i> </i><b>De' </b><i>the information</i><i> is useful
for the mission</i><b> </b>(the information's being useful
doesn't directly affect the mission; but the mission will
experience an indirect effect because of the information).</p>
<p>When you add <b>-moH</b>, you're telling the listener "the
subject isn't doing the verb; the subject is causing something
else to do the verb." <b>-moH</b> does <i>not</i> tell you "the
subject causes the object to do the verb."</p>
<p>So if we have <b>torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh,</b> we interpret it
as follows: <b>Qugh</b> causes giving to happen, but is not the
giver; <b>matlh</b> is given (because nowhere does <i>TKD</i>
say that <b>-moH</b> does anything but change the role of the
subject); and <b>torgh</b> is in some way indirectly affected by
the giving (being indirectly affected by giving usually means
something is given to you).</p>
<p>BUT... <i>noun</i><b>-vaD nob</b> doesn't <i>have</i> to mean
"give to <i>noun</i>"; that indirect effect could refer to
something else. Maybe Torg is the captain of their sportsball team
and Maltz is really irritating, so Kruge gives Maltz away to
another team for Torg's ease of mind. This is not what one would
normally expect in seeing <i>noun</i><b>-vaD nob,</b> but it's
not impossible.</p>
<p>ALSO BUT... we see verbs of state or quality add objects all the
time whenever they get <b>-moH</b> on them. Why don't we say *<b>tIjwI'ghomvaD
jIchenmoH</b> instead of <b>tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH</b>? This is
where it gets unclear, and I think the answer is that when an
action doesn't act upon a noun the indirect object "collapses"
into the object position because it's like a direct object of the
entire formation <i>verb</i><b>-moH.</b> Instead of a "direct
object" in the "object" position, an "indirect object" fills it.
This is what lojmIt tI'wI' nuv liked to call the "object of
causation," though I think that misses the nuance of what's going
on here.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">By the same
pattern, one
<br>
can say that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>matlh
nobmoH Qugh<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> means /Kruge
causes (someone) to give
<br>
Maltz (to someone)./ But I think it can ALSO mean /Kruge causes
Maltz to
<br>
give./
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, the latter is definitely sure. I had a look at TKD again
now, and it says "[moH] indicates that the subject is causing a
change of condition"
<br>
<br>
The given example {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH} is translated as "I cause
a boarding party to be formed".
<br>
<br>
literally translated that would be {chen ghom 'e' vI-[cause]}
<br>
<br>
a parallel to this is {matlh vInobmoH} "I cause maltz to give"
<br>
<br>
Exchanging the subject and adapting the suffixes gives
<br>
{matlh nobmoH Qugh} "Kruge makes maltz give"
<br>
<br>
Following my above mentioned twist, this is {nob matlh 'e' [cause]
Qugh}
<br>
<br>
The object of the nob in that phrase comes first, so
<br>
{taj nob matlh 'e' [cause] Qugh}
<br>
and that's why I replaced the sentence back and got:
<br>
{taj matlh nobmoH Qugh}
<br>
<br>
And now, to marc the topic, I've added the -'e'
<br>
{taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<br>
I still think that's a good workaround.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I can understand it, but it's not what Okrand has done.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Yes, this is the
classic problem, and the way Okrand has resolved it is
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the explanation. Can you tell me wher to find examples
for this (not nitpicking intended, I really wanna know and
understand.)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There are only the two unambiguous examples I've been bringing
up:</p>
<p><b>tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH<br>
</b><i>He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. </i>(SkyBox
S20)</p>
<p><b>petaQvam vIqopbej / QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH / 'ej
'oy' SIQ ghaH<br>
</b><i>I will bring this p'takh to justice / And teach him life
and death / The slow and painful way!</i> (PB)</p>
<p>There are other examples of <b>-moH</b> on potentially
transitive verbs, but they're all ambiguously unprefixed or
prefixed in a way that could indicate the prefix trick (so we
don't know whether they're referring to a direct or indirect
object; e.g. <b>HIQoymoH</b><i> let me hear!</i>).<br>
</p>
<p><b></b><br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:9968ea45-140f-5f09-3f0b-5250494a4950@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">has been to (1)
make the causer the subject, (2) make the causee the
<br>
indirect object with *-vaD*, and (3) keep the thing acted upon
as the
<br>
direct object.
<br>
<br>
Following Okrand's pattern, the sentence would be *matlhvaD nuq
nobmoH
<br>
Qugh.*
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
{matlhvaD lojmIt poSmoH Qugh.}
<br>
Does Kruge open the door for Maltz, (my interpretation)
<br>
or does Kruge cause Maltz to open the door? (your interpretation)
o_O
<br>
<br>
or can it be both and it's this ambiguity that lead this
discussion?
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It can be both, I believe. At least until Okrand clarifies.<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>