<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/2020 12:01 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D21CE9F7-066D-450F-B4E3-693976AF53F1@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">The description in TKD of {-moH} is relatively
simple, presenting what appeared at the time to be a shift in
the interpretation of the verb prefix such that the subject was
the one causing the action to happen and the object was the
person or thing doing the action.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Those were simpler times.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But that's just it. TKD doesn't say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about <b>-moH</b>
causing a shifting prefix or subjects becoming objects. NOTHING.
That was a rule YOU MADE UP to explain some of the examples you
saw in TKD, like <b>tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH.</b> You made up the
wrong rule and believed it to be a rule Okrand made up.</p>
<p>(And I don't mean "you" as in you, personally.)<br>
</p>
<p>When we got <b>ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH,</b> we found an exception
to that so-called rule. We later found other exceptions that
worked identically, proving that the first one wasn't an error or
a special case. What we needed was to recognize that the rule you
made up was inadequate. You (now you, personally) have always been
unable to make that leap. You've never been able to truly accept
that the made up rule you internalized was wrong.</p>
<p>What I have done is also make up a rule to explain examples. But
the rule I have made up is consistent with everything we know. And
if something comes along that disproves that rule, I'll change it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D21CE9F7-066D-450F-B4E3-693976AF53F1@mac.com">The issue
is that while the subject of the verb identified by the prefix on
a verb with {-moH} is always the “agent” who causes the action to
occur, the object specified by the prefix in a verb with {-moH}
apparently can either be the subject performing the action, or it
can be the direct object of the action of the verb. Apparently,
context alone can disambiguate when nothing else provides that.</blockquote>
<p>No. The subject of a verb with <b>-moH,</b> even if that subject
is elided, is the cause, not the agent. In semantics, an agent is
an entity that deliberately performs the action of the verb. In
the sentence <b>la'vaD Hol ghojmoH Sogh,</b> the <b>Sogh</b> is
the cause, and the <b>la'</b> is the agent, because the <b>la'</b>
is the one that deliberately performs <b>Sogh.</b><br>
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the object of the verb is the patient (undergoes the
action and changes its state) or theme (undergoes the action and
does not change its state). In the above sentence, the <b>Hol</b>
is the theme.</p>
<p>The terminology in TKD is obviously inadequate to address this,
because it doesn't even try to address it. It presents examples of
<b>-moH</b> without explaining AT ALL how it works. You came up
with your own explanation and believed it to be gospel. In the
terminology of TKD, we have the SYNTACTIC roles of subject (the
unmarked noun after the verb), object (the unmarked noun before
the verb), and beneficiary (the noun marked with <b>-vaD</b>
before any object) and the SEMANTIC roles of direct object (the
patient or theme), indirect object (the recipient), and cause (and
we don't get a semantic term for the subject of a verb without <b>-moH</b>).</p>
<p>And the rule that DOES seem to accommodate every example we have
is this: when using <b>-moH,</b> the subject has the semantic
role of cause, the object has the semantic role of either direct
object or indirect object if there is no direct object, and the
beneficiary has the role of indirect object if the object already
has the semantic role of direct object.<br>
</p>
<p>This explains how <b>tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH</b> (TKD) works. This
explains how <b>ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH</b> (S20) works. This
explains how <b>[</b><b>puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH</b> (PB) works.
It explains everything. As long as it continues to explain
everything, it is the best model for <b>-moH</b> we have.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D21CE9F7-066D-450F-B4E3-693976AF53F1@mac.com">
<div class="">But, Okrand’s version of this is:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">If you compress {ghojmoH} into its dictionary
definition, this makes sense as “For you, I will teach the
Klingon language.” Note that in English, you can teach a topic,
and you can teach a student, and you can teach a topic to a
student, as well as teach a student about a topic. These helper
words disambiguate the topic and the student.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's not <i>for you.</i> That's a general benefactive
interpretation. <b>-vaD</b> nouns play two separate semantic
roles. They can be a general benefactive, as in <b>Qu'vaD lI'</b><i>
It is useful for the mission,</i> or they can be indirect
objects, as in<b> yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'</b><i> The prisoner gave
the officer the knife.</i> In the former, you would not
interpret <b>Qu'vaD</b> as <i>received by the mission,</i> and
in the latter you would not interpret <b>yaSvaD</b> as <i>for
the benefit of the officer.</i><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>