<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/8/2018 4:41 AM, Rhona Fenwick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<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;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:<br>
> <span>Basically, how does one determine what moods a
language actually has,<br>
> and can we apply this to Klingon?</span><br>
<br>
My understanding is that "mood" as linguistically defined
refers to specifically morphological means of signalling
modality</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Indeed, I was going to bring up that distinction, which is why
"modality" is in the subject line, but my topic was getting away
from me, so I cut out the modality part.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div> (that is, the speaker's subjective attitude towards the
action of the verb as it is, should be, or may be) on finite
verbs, since lexical expressions of modality are presumably
limitless in any given language. Also, I think moods in a
morphological system of modality would need to be mutually
exclusive, otherwise you'd start multiplying moods together
and end up with a much more complicated system.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Does complexity disqualify combined moods?<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>With the idea of clearly separating evidentiality from
modality, I'd <span>probably
</span>treat Klingon as having four distinct morphological
moods: one realis (indicative), two deontic (imperative,
optative -<b>jaj</b>), and one epistemic (interrogative -<b>'a'</b>).
The other Type 9s are all basically involved in making a verb
non-finite, either as subordinate clauses (-<b>DI'</b>, -<b>bogh</b>,
-<b>chugh</b>, -<b>pa'</b>, -<b>vIS</b>, -<b>meH</b>) or nouns
(-<b>ghach</b>, -<b>wI'</b>), and because non-finite, modality
doesn't really apply.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Noting that most of the syntactic suffixes make non-finite verbs
is useful, and not something that had occurred to me.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I see that none of your proposed moods can coexist, as you
suggested.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>
Whether one would want to include the Type 2 suffixes in a
count of moods is a more open question. I would tend to say
no, because they seem to be able to happily co-occur with the
non-indicative moods as well. In Turkish, -<i>mAlI</i>- forms
(e.g.
<i>gelmeliyim</i> "I must come") are often treated as a
distinct necessitative mood, and the difference there is that
a verb cannot be necessitative and any other mood at the same
time: you can't have an imperative necessitative, for
instance. Whereas in Klingon, as far as I know we can quite
happily say something like <b>mejnISjaj</b> "may he have to
leave" (even if the circumstances in which one would say
something like that would be rather narrow).<br>
<br>
The Type 6 qualification suffixes fall pretty neatly into the
category of evidentiality (and for me therefore not mood,
though again, depends on one's analysis).<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>With my limited understanding, I tend to agree with the
qualification suffixes being evidentiality and not mood. I'd like
to see an argument against the type 2 suffixes beyond not being
able to combine moods.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>
For type 3, I think that's more aspect, though not the classic
forms seen in the Type 7 aspect suffixes. -<b>choH</b>
corresponds pretty neatly to what linguists call inchoative
aspect, which is not uncommon in various languages. Much rarer
is the idea of resumption that -<b>qa'</b> shows, but the
Google overlords indicate there's a morphological resumptive
aspect "again, starting again" in Kiliwa, a language of Baja
California in Mexico. (Tangentially, Kiliwa was the
dissertation topic of one Mauricio Mixco, who completed his
doctorate at UC Berkeley, in the 1970s, and under the
supervision of Mary Haas. Coincidence? I doubt it.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I unhesitatingly call the type 3 suffixes aspect.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>
Type 8 (-<b>neS</b>) seems clearly just an honorific, with no
other real semantic function (a couple of strange KGT examples
aside).<br>
<br>
Type 4 (-<b>moH</b>), as a valency-changing device, would
usually be referred to as voice (cp. other valency-changing
devices like passive, middle, antipassive, etc.).<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I've never heard of <b>-moH</b> being described as voice, but
that's probably because I'm always so busy telling people <b>-lu'</b>
isn't passive voice I hadn't considered other types of voice.
You're absolutely right. According to Wikipedia, Mongolian,
Turkish, Hebrew, and Japanese all have a causative voice. Very
cool.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div>
Finally, Type 5. Here things get kind of interesting. -<b>lu'</b>
isn't passive as such; we know that. But like the English
passive, and indeed the Klingon causative, it's a
valency-changing operation, therefore voice.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I had to look this up to convince myself. There is a grammatical
"fourth person," the indefinite person, used in languages like
French and Welsh... and Klingon. But what I'm finding about it
doesn't make clear the link between fourth person and voice. The
fourth person is still the subject and agent, even if demoted in
presence, and would seem to me to be active voice. In what way is
valency changed in a <b>-lu'</b> verb?<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:PS2P216MB0897E3BAD8D1631D2AB4F03EAA9A0@PS2P216MB0897.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<div> -<b>laH</b> is a bit different because it doesn't actually
alter valency in modern Klingon, so it's hard to call it voice
<i>sensu stricto</i>. However, I've just discovered that in
Japanese grammar what's usually called the "potential voice"
originates from a form not unlike the passive, and has two
case-marked forms, one of which
<i>does</i> alter valency: <br>
<br>
Active: <i>Tomoko ga mizu o nomimasu</i> "Tomoko drinks
water"<br>
Passive: <i>Mizu ga </i>(<i>Tomoko ni</i>)<i> nomaremasu</i>
"water is drunk (by Tomoko)"
<br>
Potential: <i>Tomoko ga mizu o nomemasu</i> "Tomoko is able
to drink water"<br>
Potential: <i>Mizu ga </i>(<i>Tomoko ni</i>)<i> nomemasu</i>
"water is drinkable (by Tomoko)"<br>
<br>
It may be worthy of noting that English deverbal adjectives in
-<i>able</i> are generally passive in nature too:
<i>drinkable</i> is not "able to drink", but "able to <u>be</u>
drunk". Perhaps an insight (within the game, at least) into
the historical origin of why Klingon -<b>laH</b> patterns with
-<b>lu'</b>?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I don't see the connection here with Klingon, a completely
unrelated language. You'd first have to convince me that <b>-lu'</b>
is a separate voice, then maybe we could speculate on <b>-laH</b>
being based in voice simply by virtue of its type 5
classification, even though it doesn't seem to change voice at
all.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thank you very much for this! It's been extremely helpful to me
and cleared up some confusion I've had about applying grammatical
terminology to describe Klingon.<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>