<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 4/16/2019 4:07 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No. Except when dealing with <b>-lu',</b> the prefix always
means exactly what it says. <b>DI-,</b> for example, means
first-person plural subject and third-person plural object.</p>
<p>What the prefix does NOT do is tell you what the semantic roles
of the subject and object are.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<div class=""> This is not unique. The suffixes {-lu’}, {-‘egh},
and {-chuq} change how we interpret the prefix,</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-lu'</b> does; <b>-'egh</b> and <b>-chuq</b> do not.
According to TKD, <b>-'egh</b> and <b>-chuq</b> require
no-object prefixes, because there are no objects when you've got a
reflexive subject. Evidence tells us that when <b>-moH</b> is
involved, the no-object-prefix rule is no longer in play. The
prefix still won't agree with the reflexive entity, but it might
agree with any other subjects or objects in the sentence.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<div class=""> 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>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The prefix simply agrees with the subject and some object, as
it always does. You simply have to figure out which object it's
agreeing with and what that object's semantic role in the sentence
is.</p>
<p><b>tlhIngan Hol qaghojmoH</b> <i>I teach you Klingon.</i> The
prefix <b>qa-</b> <i>I—you (singular)</i> refers to the subject
<i>I,</i> the causer, and the (indirect) object <i>you,</i> the
experiencer.</p>
<p><b>tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH</b><i> I teach Klingon.</i> The prefix
<b>vI-</b><i> I—he/she/it/they</i> refers to the subject <i>I,</i>
the causer, and the (direct) object <i>Klingon language,</i> the
theme.</p>
<p><b>SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH</b><i> I teach you Klingon.<b> </b></i>The
prefix <b>vI-</b> <i>I—he/she/it/they</i> refers to the subject
<i>I,</i> the causer, and the (direct) object <i>Klingon
language,</i> the theme. The <i>you</i> is an indirect object
that the prefix does not agree with.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>It is.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. I might say, for instance, <b>puq </b><b>vIghojnISmoH.</b><i>
</i>It might mean <i>I need to teach the child,</i> or it might
mean <i>I cause the child to need to learn.</i></p>
<p>You simply have to recognize that when <b>-moH</b> is used, you
can't rely on the simple formula that subject =
agent/experiencer/force, object = patient/theme/stimulus. That
formula works for sentences without <b>-moH,</b> but not
necessarily for those with it.</p>
<p>Example from TKD: <b>HeghqangmoHlu'pu'</b><i> </i><i>it made
him/her willing to die</i>. The thing that is causing the
situation is indefinite, and the <b>-moH</b> and <b>-pu'</b>
apply to it. He/she has possession of the dying and the
willingness. <b>Heghqang ghaH</b> but <b>-moHlu'pu' </b>by the
indefinite subject. But this would also be the word for <i>one</i><i>
was willing to make him/her die.</i> Which suffix belongs to
which entity is ambiguous.<br>
<i></i></p>
<p><i></i><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<div class="">Similarly, {nuvvaDvetlh tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}
means, “For the benefit of that guy, I cause-learning the
Klingon language.”</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You obviously meant <b>nuvvetlhvaD.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">By
comparison, he didn’t do squat to explain how {-moH} would change
the way that a verb relates to its direct object.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Pretty much.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">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.</blockquote>
<p>I'm sure Okrand never even thought about how <b>chen tIjwI'ghom</b>
becomes <b>tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH</b> when he wrote it in TKD. It
just seemed to make sense. <b>chenmoH</b> is <i>make,</i> so <i>I
make a boarding party.</i> I'm pretty sure that's as far as he'd
worked it out in his head.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>As you show with your <i>gooder</i> example, there's the way
things are said and there's what makes sense. This particular
pattern (AvaD B VmoH C = C causes A to V B) is fairly well
established now. That's not to say something else might not come
up, but going against it would be like insisting on saying <i>gooder</i>
when you know perfectly well that's not right.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>I wouldn't assign so much agency to Okrand about this. He's not
sitting up at night cackling that he's tying us in knots. He's
probably just still baffled why we argue about this stuff so much.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">There’s
the way it ought to be, and then there’s the way it is.</blockquote>
<p>It oughtn't be <i>gooder;</i> that's simply misapplication of a
formula. As I've been talking about. There are deep historical
reasons why we say <i>better</i> instead of <i>gooder;</i> it's
not an arbitrary irregularity someone dreamed up one day.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>We look at the entire verb. If there is a <b>-lu',</b> we use a
special set of prefixes. If there is a <b>-moH,</b> we know the
prefix will indicate a subject that causes the action and which
may have another role, and an object, either direct or indirect,
whose role in the sentence is not clear until we start looking at
the meaning.</p>
<p>If we don't see either of these, then it's simple: the subject is
the agent/experiencer/force and the object is the
patient/theme/stimulus.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The prefix means whatever it means. Having a type 1 suffix simply
means that some entity in the sentence is being referred to
reflexively, and any object present in the sentence is not being
acted upon by that reflexive entity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:48862DE8-4952-43BB-9AD7-800B211F296E@mac.com">
<div class=""> 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>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It's not as complicated as you're making it. If you stopped
thinking syntactically, you'd see that.</p>
<p>Take a verb with <b>-moH.</b> The subject causes the action. Any
object is being acted upon in some way, whether being caused-unto
or acted upon by the action. Any reflexive suffix simply means the
reflexive entity acts upon itself. The verb prefix simply agrees
with the subject and object; the prefix has no interest in the
actual semantic roles in the sentence. <b>-lu'</b> does nothing
except invoke a special set of prefixes, but these prefixes work
exactly the same way as any other. Any other suffixes might apply
to either subject or object.<br>
</p>
<p>After that, you simply have to look to canon to determine how
Klingon juggles semantic roles in various combinations.<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>