<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 2:06 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">I don’t
suggest that there is anything objectively wrong with it. I
subjectively despise the shift in what had otherwise been a clear
relationship between a verb’s subject and its object.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">What follows is not an attempt to shift the way
Klingon speakers use {-moH}. I’m simply trying to describe why
the veins stick out in my neck when I encounter this change in
the understanding of how {-moH} works.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It relates to the way that Okrand demures from using
the term “Direct Object” and chooses the apparently broader term
“Object”.</div>
<div class=""><br 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>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>what</i> is happening; all that
is relevant is that the subject performs the verb in that abstract
space we call syntax.</p>
<p>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>
<p>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><b>chab vISop</b><i> I eat pie.</i> I deliberately eat pie; I am
the agent and the subject.<br>
<b>loDHom vISopmoH</b><i> I cause the boy to eat (something
unspecified).</i> I am not the agent even though I am the
subject. My role is <i>causer.</i><br>
<b>chab vISopmoH</b><i> I cause (someone unspecified) to eat pie.</i>
I am not the agent even though I am the subject. My role is
causer.<br>
<b>loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b><i> I cause the boy to eat pie.<b> </b></i>I
am not the agent even though I am the subject. My role is causer.<br>
</p>
<p>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>
<p>A patient is an entity that undergoes an action and thereby
changes its state.</p>
<p><b>chab vISop</b><i> I eat pie.<b> </b></i>The pie is the
patient because it undergoes an action (being eaten) and changes
its state (it is gone).<br>
<b>loDHom vISopmoH</b><i> 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>
<b>chab vISopmoH</b><i> 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>
<b>loDHomvaD chab vISopmoH</b><i> 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>
<br>
Notice how it's completely irrelevant to what's actually happening
whether a word appears as subject, direct object, or indirect
object? What's important is what it means, not how the sentence is
constructed.<br>
</p>
To summarize: Subject does not equal agent. Object does not equal
patient. Subject and object refer to abstract syntax without regard
to what the sentence actually means. Agent, patient, and other
semantic terms refer to the meaning of the sentence without regard
to where they actually appear in the sentence.<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">Meanwhile, there are other nouns that give
information about the action or state of the verb. A type 5 noun
suffix defines specific relationships between the verb and that
noun. Locative, beneficiary, etc.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The absence of any Type 5 suffix on a noun before
the verb suggests that this noun is the “Object” of the verb.
So, what does this mean, exactly? It seems straightforward
enough, but if you look at it closer, it gets more complicated.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In English, you can take an example like, “The Moon
orbits the Earth.” Simple enough. "The Earth" is the direct
object of “orbit”.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The same meaning can be conveyed by saying, “The
Moon goes around the Earth.” Here, the “Earth” is not the direct
object of “goes”. The Moon doesn’t go the Earth. It goes around
the Earth. The word “around” is a preposition.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So, in “The Moon orbits the Earth”, the direct
object of “orbit” has a prepositional relationship with its
subject.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This is a glimpse at something that is happening to
the thought before it goes through a brain and comes out
language.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Basically, each verb ties the subject and object
together with a relationship that is the most common type of
relationship implied by that verb. Different verbs imply
different relationships between subject and object, but the most
common relationship between nouns linked by the verb is the
relationship defined by the appropriate direct object of the
verb.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not inherent in the syntax of the sentence. <i>The moon
orbits the earth.</i> <i>Moon</i> is a "force" (it performs the
action mindlessly); <i>earth</i> is a <i>theme </i>(undergoes
the action but does not thereby change its state). If you change
the syntax to <i>The moon goes around the earth,</i> you haven't
changed the semantic roles of those words one whit.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">So, the direct object of “orbit” has a prepositional
relationship between the subject and object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No it doesn't. A preposition doesn't have an inherent meaning;
it's the words that make up the preposition that are meaningful. I
can, for instance, say <i>The space agency will orbit the
satellite around the Earth fifty times.</i> Check a dictionary;
this meaning of <i>orbit</i> is listed. Now the direct object of
<i>orbit</i> isn't the thing that something else goes around; it's
the thing that's going around something else. Now the direct
object of orbit isn't a theme, it's a patient. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class=""> The direct object of “hit” has an event-centric,
physical interaction between the subject and object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But the direct object of <i>hit</i> might be a patient <i>(The
captain hit the enemy)</i> or it might be a theme <i>(The smell
hit my nostrils; the ship hit the ground).</i> It's not quite so
simple as that.</p>
<p>And what about <i>The ball was hit?</i> We name the thing that
was hit, but it isn't the object of <i>hit.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class=""> 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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><i>Exercise builds character.</i> Are you suggesting an athlete
has no character until he/she finishes exercising?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<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>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>Star Trek</i> merchandising
opportunity. The fact that <i>you</i> want to analyze those words
decades later doesn't make him squeamish.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">Well, it doesn’t seem to make much difference until
you add {-moH} to a verb. Then the reason for not wanting to put
the descriptor “direct” in front of “object” really gets in your
face and refuses to be ignored.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's because by putting on <b>-moH</b> you're telling the
sentence, "Hey, <i>I</i> didn't actually do this thing; I just
made <i>someone else</i> do it." You're asking <b>-moH</b> to do
this, so it should come as absolutely no surprise when it does do
it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">tlhIngan Hol vIghoj. I learn the language of a
Klingon.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">puqwI’ vIghojmoH. I teach my child. I cause my child
to learn. I’m not the one learning. I’m the one causing learning
to happen. My child is the one learning.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH. I teach the language of a
Klingon.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Okay, things just got weird. I am still causing
learning to happen. The language of a Klingon is not learning.
Okay, so unlike every other verb suffix, {-moH} is not merely
modifying the verb in a way that can be explained by any
standard, boilerplate text. It is opening up new opportunities
for nouns to be objects of the verb. You don’t need no stinkin’
Type 5 suffix here. You can just put two completely different
kinds of nouns in the role of the “object” of the verb. The
object can be the direct object of causation, or the direct
object of the action being caused.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no "direct object of causation" or "direct object of the
action." These are nonsense terms. There is a direct object, which
is whatever the verb is acting upon <i>without regard to the
meaning of the sentence.</i> <b>puq vIghojmoH</b><i> </i>I,
the subject, am acting upon the child, the object. Syntactically —
and remember, subject and object are syntactic terms — I don't
care what the verb means. I am acting upon the child. <b>Hol
vIghojmoH</b><i> </i>I, the subject, am acting upon the
language, the object. Again, I don't care what the verb actually
means; all that matters is that I am acting upon the language.</p>
<p>Now, the idea that a single verb can have multiple semantic roles
for its arguments is nothing new. <i>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>What's the big deal?</p>
<p>Get away from the idea that "object" conveys some kind of meaning
for the world being described by the sentence. All it does is say
that the subject is acting upon the object by the action of the
verb. That's all. No meaning associated with it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">The object of {ghojmoH} can either be the one who
learns, or the topic or skill being learned. If only one of
these is stated, these two potential objects are on equal
footing and neither needs a Type 5 suffix to explain its
relationship to the subject. Basically the relationship between
the subject and object is grammatically ambiguous in a way that
does not exist elsewhere in the language. This happens to every
verb, whenever {-moH} is attached to it, and it doesn’t happen
to any verbs without {-moH}, that we know of, anyway.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Because no verbs without <b>-moH</b> ask us to put both the
patient and the theme (or any other combinations of roles) in the
object. You did that yourself when you added the <b>-moH.</b> You
said please, Mr. Verb, let me make myself, the subject, one step
removed from the action by not doing it, but by causing someone
else to do it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">[{jatlh} comes close, since its object apparently
can be either the utterance or the person addressed. Again, a
beautiful division between two similar verbs {jatlh} and {ja’}
divided by the type of appropriate object, later watered down so
that either verb can have either object type.]</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's entirely unclear to me that verbs of speech can actually
take the person addressed as a direct object. Okrand allows the
prefix trick on verbs like this (<b>qajatlh</b><i> I speak to you</i>),
and we see <b>qaja'</b> a lot which may or may not be the prefix
trick, but I believe there are exactly zero examples of an actual,
explicit addressee as the direct object of such a verb. Without
stronger evidence I would not make this claim.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">Furthermore, if both of these nouns appear, so that
I say, “I teach Klingon to my child,” then one of the two nouns
acquires the requirement of a Type 5 suffix. Oddly enough, it’s
not the topic of the learning. It’s the little kid doing the
learning. {puqwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.}</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's not odd. When no one is <i>causi</i><i>ng</i> the verb
(with <b>-moH</b>), the verb usually has an object with an
expected meaning. <b>Soj vISop,</b> there is no question that <b>Soj</b>
is a correct object here, but <b>puq vISop</b> cannot be correct
unless I'm a cannibal (in which case the <b>puq </b>is <b>Soj</b>
anyway). So all we have to do is recognize that the verb's usual
object role, whatever it is without <b>-moH</b>, takes precedence
over whatever agent or experiencer may have moved to become an
object. Basically, if it was an object before the <b>-moH,</b> it
stays in place if another object shows up.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">
<div class="">Personally, I would have strongly preferred
{tlhIngan Hol’e’ puqwI’ vIghojmoH.} That would have been more
obviously understandable to new people learning the language,
and it would not have required a reevaluation of masses of
earlier canon, especially for stative verbs with {-moH}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's only a reevaluation if you learned during that period. I see
students nowadays who have absolutely no problem following this.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F9321784-5E3E-4D03-869A-E96FFD361057@mac.com">I
understand how it works. I just don’t like it.</blockquote>
<p>I don't think you do understand it. You can construct sentences
the right way, but you don't understand the rationale.</p>
<p>You don't have to like it. It is what it is. What purpose does it
serve to write this much text about it?<br>
</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>