<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2019 5:09 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 19, 2019, at 3:36 PM, SuStel <<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2019 2:06 PM, Will
Martin wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com"
class="">
<div class="">...</div>
<div class="">Basically, the Subject or Agent does the
action of the verb. Languages pretty universally agree
on that, and pretty much every verb works with most
nouns acting as Subject, if that noun is actually
capable of doing the action of the verb, or acquiring
the state suggested by the verb. That much has no
controversy that I’ve seen.</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">No. You're still mixing up syntax and
semantics. The subject is the thing that goes at the
end. It is a syntactic element that performs whatever
the verb is, regardless of what is actually being
described by the sentence. Whether the subject is doing
something or experiencing something or causing something
is completely irrelevant, as is <i class="">what</i> is
happening; all that is relevant is that the subject
performs the verb in that abstract space we call syntax.</p>
<p class="">Likewise for the object. It makes absolutely
no difference what the sentence is actually about; all
that matters is that the object is having the verb done
to it. It doesn't matter what the verb means; the object
simply has that abstract verb done to it.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>That sounds simple, and it fits the way I always thought it
worked, until I hit a wall when a verb with {-moH} gets two
objects, except that one of them needs {-vaD}, if both objects
are stated, but doesn’t need it if only one object is stated.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's more than just an arbitrary attaching of <b>-vaD</b>
because you can't have two objects. In <b>loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b>
I am causing an action to happen and the <i>recipient</i> of the
thing that I cause is the boy. He is receiving that which I cause.
A recipient is a beneficiary or an indirect object. That's what <b>-vaD</b>
does, and that's why the <b>loDHom</b> gets it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>I think my problem is that in “I give Sam an apple,” there’s
a direct object and an indirect object, and there are
grammatical clues as to which is which based on word order. So,
Klingon doesn’t like to use the terms “direct” or “indirect”,
and so both kinds of objects are “objects”.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Klingon <i>does</i> have direct and indirect objects. There's a
whole section of the TKD addendum about indirect objects. I'm
saying that there are times when Klingon sentences don't care all
that much which one is which, and there are times when they do.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>I could get that. Klingon doesn’t care about the difference
between a direct object “I give an apple” and an indirect
object, “I give to Sam”, which I can combine in English as “I
give Sam an apple.” The verb “give” has two objects. One is
direct. One is indirect. Klingon doesn’t care about the
difference. I could get that.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In this case, Klingon <i>does</i> care. You have to say <b>SamvaD
'epIl naH vInob.</b> There's no other way to formulate it. <b>Sam</b>
is the recipient of the giving (not of causing), so it gets <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>But in Klingon, this works in a way backwards from English,
because instead of being able to say, “I give an apple to Sam,”
optionally as “I give Sam an apple,” and could say the parts as,
“I give an apple,” and “I give to Sam,” it’s like the only legal
form of the combination sentence is “I give an apple to Sam,”
and the parts would be expressed as “I give an apple,” and “I
give Sam.”</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>I’m not allowed to say, “I give to Sam,” but if both objects
are stated, I have to say, “I give an apple to Sam.” It’s not
okay to say, “I give Sam an apple”.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>A consequence of Klingon not having prepositions.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">An agent, though, is an entity that actually
deliberately performs an action. You have to know what the
verb means in order to identify whether there is an agent
and where that agent belongs in the sentence.</p>
<p class=""><b class="">chab vISop</b><i class=""> I eat
pie.</i> I deliberately eat pie; I am the agent and the
subject.<br class="">
<b class="">loDHom vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I cause the
boy to eat (something unspecified).</i> I am not the
agent even though I am the subject. My role is <i
class="">causer.</i><br class="">
<b class="">chab vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I cause (someone
unspecified) to eat pie.</i> I am not the agent even
though I am the subject. My role is causer.<br class="">
<b class="">loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I
cause the boy to eat pie.<b class=""> </b></i>I am not
the agent even though I am the subject. My role is causer.<br
class="">
</p>
<p class="">To identify me as the agent, you need to
determine whether I am eating. The rest of the sentence
doesn't matter and can do whatever it wants.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Perfectly sensible. {Sop} without {-moH} and the same noun
is both the agent and the causer.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>No. In <b>chab vISop</b> I am the agent but not the causer.
There is no causer in <b>chab vISop.</b> Nobody caused me to eat
the pie. If you wanted my to cause myself to eat the pie, that'd
be <b>chab vISop'eghmoH.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div> {SopmoH} and the subject is the causer, while the agent
becomes one of two possible objects of the verb. If both
objects exist, then the agent gets {-vaD} added, but if the
agent is the only stated object, it does not get {-vaD}.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">A patient is an entity that undergoes an action
and thereby changes its state.</p>
<p class=""><b class="">chab vISop</b><i class=""> I eat
pie.<b class=""> </b></i>The pie is the patient because
it undergoes an action (being eaten) and changes its state
(it is gone).<br class="">
<b class="">loDHom vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I cause the
boy to eat (something unspecified).</i> The boy is not
the patient because the boy is not having his state
changed; he is the agent because he is performing the
action (eating). The pie is still the patient because it
is being eaten. I am the causer.<br class="">
<b class="">chab vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I cause (someone
unspecified) to eat pie.</i> The pie is the patient
because it is being eaten. It does not matter whether we
know who is eating it or not. I am the causer.<br class="">
<b class="">loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b><i class=""> I
cause the boy to eat pie.</i> As always, the pie is the
patient because it is being eaten. Again, the boy is the
agent because he is doing the eating. I am still the
causer.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>So, both the agent and the patient are both potential
objects of {SopmoH}, so long as only one of them is explicitly
stated, while only the patient can be the object of {Sop},
though if both the patient and the agent are explicit, then
the agent gets {-vaD} and the patient is grammatically the one
object, since {-vaD} essentials marks the agent as something
other than object.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It marks the agent as a beneficiary of the causing, but the
marking only happens to avoid a double direct object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div>Technically, one could consider it an “indirect object”,
but Klingon doesn’t have indirect objects or direct objects.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Except it does. It just doesn't distinguish them until it has to.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div> It just has “objects”. Though in any other setting, a noun
with {-vaD} on it is not an object because if it’s the only
object there, the prefix does not agree with it being
interpreted as an object.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I could say <b>loDHomvaD jInob</b> <i>I give (something
unspecified or general) to the boy</i> and <b>loDHomvaD </b>is
the indirect object.</p>
<p>The whole shifting-objects thing only happens with <b>-moH,</b>
as you've said.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>… all of which makes it more complicated than the original
statement that "the object is having the verb done to it.”
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>It sounds like the patient is having the verb done to it.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, there's syntax and then there's semantics. Syntactically,
the <i>object</i> has the <i>verb </i>done to it. Semantically,
the <i>patient </i>has the <i>action</i> done to it, and the <i>recipient</i>
has the action done <i>for</i> it. Notice the difference between
having a verb done to you (a completely abstract concept) and
having the action done to you (considering the <i>meaning</i> of
what's going on, not some abstract verb).</p>
<p>Syntax: the subject does verb to the object. I don't know
anything about what just happened.<br>
</p>
<p>Semantics: I know everything about what just happened, but I
don't know how you've formulated a sentence to express it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div>But you are dancing on both sides of the definition of what
the verb is. Is the verb eating, or is it causing eating?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's semantics. A verb with <b>-moH</b> is still just a verb,
and syntactically it still just has abstract subjects and objects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>It has more to do with verbs that normally do not take
objects because they have no patient, like {tuj}. The agent
becomes the object with {tujmoH}.
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>My real problem is, why not say {chabwIjvaD jItujmoH.}?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You probably could, but since you can say <b>chabwIj vItujmoH</b>
you'd sound silly doing it. <i>I make things in general hot, and
I do it for my pie.</i><br>
</p>
<p>The grammar of <b>loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b> has to do with the
fact that you can already say <b>chab Sop.</b> You can't say that
you <b>tuj </b>something, so the grammar will necessarily be
different. The pie is the experiencer (instead of agent). it makes
perfect sense to put that in the object position of <b>tujmoH, </b>because
syntactically it's the thing the subject (syntax) is acting upon.
It's the experiencer because it's the thing that's experiencing
the action in the real world.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>The implication is that this is the correct version of
{chabwIj vItujmoH}, because if there were a patient here, {chab}
would need {-vaD}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That would be the implication if the rule were that a verb with <b>-moH</b>
forces patients to be indirect objects, but that's not the rule.
The rule is, apparently, that verbs with <b>-moH</b> prefer their
pre<b>-moH</b> objects over objects that appear after <b>-moH</b>
is added. <b>tuj</b> has no original object, so there's no reason
<b>chab</b><b>wIj</b> can't slide right in there.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div>That’s the ghost that whispers to me when I see how Okrand
has explained how {-moH} works. It’s an inconsistency in the
grammar.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It works completely consistently, and he's done it quite a bit
now. You're having trouble reconciling your internalized rules
with how it works, but that's not an inconsistency in the grammar.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com"
class="">
<div class=""> The direct object of “hit” has an
event-centric, physical interaction between the subject
and object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">But the direct object of <i class="">hit</i>
might be a patient <i class="">(The captain hit the
enemy)</i> or it might be a theme <i class="">(The
smell hit my nostrils; the ship hit the ground).</i>
It's not quite so simple as that.</p>
<p class="">And what about <i class="">The ball was hit?</i>
We name the thing that was hit, but it isn't the object of
<i class="">hit.</i></p>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Passive voice. Special. I’d expect the ball to be patient
of hit with an indefinite agent, bu then, are we talking about
the sphere, or the score-related number?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Switching to passive voice is very much like adding <b>-moH.</b>
You're moving semantic roles around in a sentence while using the
same rules syntax.</p>
<p><i>I hit the ball<br>
</i>Syntax: I am subject; the ball is direct object.<br>
Semantics: I am agent; the ball is patient.<br>
</p>
<p><i>The ball was hit by me</i>.<br>
Syntax: The ball is subject; <i>me </i>is the object of a
preposition.<br>
Semantics: I am agent; the ball is patient.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>The direct object of “build” has a historical relationship
between the entity that brought the direct object into being,
and the resultant thing that was made. Building is the process.
The direct object is the result of that process. The object and
the process do not coexist in time. The action of building is
always in the past of the object that was built. The object is
not complete until the action of building it is complete.
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com"
class=""> </blockquote>
<p class=""><i class="">Exercise builds character.</i> Are
you suggesting an athlete has no character until he/she
finishes exercising?</p>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Another good example, though my read of this is more like
shorthand for “Exercise builds on the character you have,
increasing and improving it.” No matter. Your point taken.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Notice that you changed the syntax, changing <i>character</i>
from a direct object to the object of a preposition.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com"
class="">
<div class="">But that’s a “direct object”. What about the
larger class of “objects”? Why is Okrand so squeamish
about adding the word “direct” in front of “object”?</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="">I don't think he was being squeamish; I think he
didn't consider it particularly relevant. He wasn't
writing an academic paper; he was writing a coffee-table <i
class="">Star Trek</i> merchandising opportunity. The
fact that <i class="">you</i> want to analyze those words
decades later doesn't make him squeamish.</p>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I learned about direct objects in high school. I didn’t
think it was particularly academic. My bad. I had a very good
English teacher. I didn’t know she was giving us advanced
stuff.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Nonsense. <i>The Klingon Dictionary</i> isn't as precise as a
high school English class.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>It seems logical that if both objects were there, then the
patient would get {-‘e’}, since we had a lot more examples of
agent as object than patient as object up to this point, so it
really felt like the patient should be the object and this other
thing should be marked with a Type 5 of some sort.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It doesn't get <b>-vaD</b> as some sort of generic
I-need-to-tag-it-with-something-and-here's-a-convenient-suffix. It
gets <b>-vaD</b> because it's the noun that is receiving the
thing that the subject is doing. Syntactically.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<div>I was just trying to use the language that TKD uses instead
of switching to the academic terms “agent” and “patient”,
which Okrand doesn’t mention and I didn’t learn in high
school. My choice of language didn’t work for you. It probably
didn’t work for anyone.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>TKD doesn't have the vocabulary to explain how this works. This
sort of thing wasn't explained in TKD, and didn't show up until a
SkyBox card.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C4C682B6-2820-40E2-9026-258857EF09F8@mac.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class="">Now, the idea that a single verb can have
multiple semantic roles for its arguments is nothing new.
<i class="">I teach the child. I teach Klingon.</i>
English speakers do that without blinking. In the first
sentence, the child is the patient. In the second
sentence, Klingon is the theme. Different semantic roles
for the same verb.</p>
<p class="">What's the big deal?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The big deal is the difference between the English word “teach”
and the Klingon word {ghojmoH}. Yes, the gloss is the same.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What's the big deal <i>in English?</i> There is none. You
effortlessly switch between saying <i>I teach the child</i> and <i>I
teach the language.</i> We understand the semantic difference;
we know that you're not causing a language to learn something, and
that the child is not a subject of study. Why can't Klingons be
equally quick to understand <b>puq vIghojmoH</b> and <b>Hol
vIghojmoH?</b> A Klingon will not be moving suffixes and objects
around in his head, trying to identify agents and indirect objects
and so on.<br>
</p>
<p><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>