<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I apologize for the apparent error in terminology.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To give my wording to an explanation that SuStel gave earlier, trying to show evidence that to some extent, “I get it,” the suffix {-moH} changes the interpretation of what the prefix means. This is not unique. The suffixes {-lu’}, {-‘egh}, and {-chuq} change how we interpret the prefix, and Okrand went out of his way to explain the details of how those suffixes work and their effect on the prefix’s meaning. To understand {-moH}, we basically have to combine the verb with {-moH} BEFORE we interpret the prefix (or ANY other affix, for that matter).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Since he didn’t give a grammatical explanation for the roles of subject and object with {-moH}, given the limited examples he gave in TKD, it appeared to imply that the subject role caused the action or state and the object role did the action or state, but as it turns out, it’s more complicated than that.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">With {-moH}, “be hot” changes meaning to “cause-the-state-of-being-hot”, and THEN you process the other affixes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, {jItuj'eghmoH} means, “I cause-the-state-of-being-hot myself.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Similarly, {nuvvaDvetlh tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} means, “For the benefit of that guy, I cause-learning the Klingon language.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And given the example in question,<span style="font-style: normal;" class=""> {puqpu’ma’ DIqIHchuqnISmoH}, "We must cause-meeting-for-the-first-time </span>each other <span style="font-style: normal;" class="">our children."</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-style: normal;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class="">I used to object to this weird way that {-moH} gloms itself onto the verb’s meaning in order [cue in the ST:TOS intro theme music] to boldly do new things with the prefix that no suffix has done before, but it’s obvious that canon dictates this is how it works.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And that’s not really fair to say that. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{-lu’} changes how the prefix works. {-egh} and {-chuq} change how the prefix works. The issue here is that Okrand went out of his way to explain exactly how these suffixes change the meaning of the prefix. By comparison, he didn’t do squat to explain how {-moH} would change the way that a verb relates to its direct object.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Before {-moH}, a {ghojwI’} is one who learns and a {ghojmoHwI’} is one who causes learning. Before {-moH}, {tlhIngan Hol ghoj ghojwI’}. The language isn’t learning. The student is learning. But toss in {-moH}, and it gets weird. {ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}. The teacher causes-learning the student. {thIngan Hol ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’.} The teacher causes-learning the Klingon language. [Ick, but, well, okay.] {ghojwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}. The teacher causes-learning Klingon language for the student.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The TKD explanation of this was remarkably incomplete. Likely, it was written before Okrand decided how to handle ditransitive settings of a transitive verb + {-moH}, and I, for one, was thrown for a loop when his final canon examples came out.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’d argue that it should also make sense to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’.} "As for the Klingon language, the teacher causes-learning the student," simply because it’s okay to say {ghojwI’ ghojmoH ghojmoHwI’}, and we’re just adding the topic of that causing-learning. There is no canon backing up this assertion. It’s just simple to understand using normal interpretation of Klingon grammar. It might seem stylistically odd, but there’s no reason to expect that a Klingon would wonder what it meant.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I doubt I would have had a problem with it if Okrand had presented the new canon with an expanded explanation of the grammar. Instead, he chose to imply unexpected rules of grammar without stating them. That’s always been the root of my problem with this area of grammar.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s like being told, as a four year old, that “gooder” is not a word in English. It’s “better”. And don’t get me started on “goodest”…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There’s the way it ought to be, and then there’s the way it is.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There’s the issue of parsing. Most of the time, we see the prefix and we know who is doing the action or experiencing the state, and optionally to whom or to what the action is being done. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the prefix implies a subject and an object and the verb is stative or otherwise is not supportive of having an object, we need to look ahead for {-moH} to make it make sense. If there is no {-moH}, then we need to see if the prefix has a third-person-singular object and hope we find {-lu’} as we continue to parse. If we don’t find either {-moH} or {-lu’} with a stative or otherwise intransitive verb with a prefix implying a direct object, then either we are reading poetry, or there’s been a grammatical error. [No, there is no discernible difference. Rely on context.]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If {-‘egh} or {-chuq} are there, we have to go back to the prefix and reinterpret it, assuming it is a “no object” prefix. We then take the indicated subject as both subject and object, with {-chuq} for plural subject, and {-'egh} usually for singular, though it could be plural if the group consists of individuals doing the action to themselves instead of to each other. It can be important to understand the difference between an invitation to {manga’chuq} and an invitation to {manga’’egh}, lest one show up unprepared.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[Perhaps that’s a mental image you’d like to be able to un-see. Too late, now.]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the prefix implies a subject and an object, and we find {-chuq} or {-‘egh}, then we need to withhold interpretation until we’ve processed more suffixes, because {-moH} or {-lu’} OUGHT to be there.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If {-moH} is there, then if {-chuq} or {-'egh} is there, we need to forget anything we assumed about the prefix and start over, thinking about {-moH} BEFORE adding in {-‘egh} or {-chuq}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If we hit {-lu’}, and we haven’t had {-‘egh}, {-chuq}, or {-moH}, then we check to make sure there’s a third person singular object indicated and reinterpret the prefix. If the prefix doesn’t fit {lu’}, then we’re reading poetry, or there’s been an error.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If we HAVE already been through {-chuq} or {-‘egh} and {-moH}, then our heads explode. Game over.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">“In that room, one teaches each other to speak Klingon.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol lughojchuqmoHlu’.}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">or perhaps</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol’e’ jeSwI’pu’vaD lughojchuqmoHlu’.} [Cue sound effects for the Lemmings game after clicking on the Time Bomb button]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[and one wonders why Bingon and other attempts to programmatically translate Klingon tend to render frequently erroneous results.]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, yes, I can use {-moH} in the full glory of it’s functionality.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just wish Okrand had done a gooder job of explaining it.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 16, 2019, at 2:31 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">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 4/16/2019 1:55 PM, Alan Anderson
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAFK8js09HNT8owJFvJ=FmRuEs+oyHbArV9Qn8YcGqUketxkKZw@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="gmail-m_2867629574833304790moz-cite-prefix">On
4/16/2019 12:59 PM, Will Martin wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">We don’t seem to have a problem with
the idea that {jI-} means the same entity is the subject
of causation AND the subject of being hot, even though
there is no explicit explanation of how this works</blockquote><p class="">You want to understand?</p><p class="">Never say the phrase "subject of the causation" again.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><p class=""><font color="#00afcd" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 175, 205);" class="">...</span></font>So we can flail about helplessly with no syntactic formula for <b class="">-moH</b>
given to us by Okrand, or we can deduce the rules and why they are
what they are. Which is what we've been doing all along.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>