<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="">This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh<br class="">(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div></div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 17, 2021, at 9:51 AM, 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 class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/17/2021 9:16 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ab6c9e2d-655f-7d44-447b-78f151e099ef@gmx.de" class="">On
6/17/2021 4:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">So, to say "I cross my fingers", you say
{nItlhDu' vIvechchuqmoH}, and
<br class="">
not {vIvechmoH}.
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Am 17.06.2021 um 14:55 schrieb SuStel:
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Was there any discussion about using a
third-person object prefix along
<br class="">
with the -chuq suffix?
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
That is indeed a very good question, and no, we did not focus on
this.
<br class="">
<br class="">
We did not really think about the prefixes, they followwed
<br class="">
automatically. In the discussion, the topic was first on the verb
<br class="">
{vIvech}, then {vIvechmoH} - and the we noticed that it need the
{-chuq}
<br class="">
suffix to say each other. Since the subject and the object of the
<br class="">
sentence did not change ("I --> fingers") we also didn't think
about the
<br class="">
question whether this suffix woudl work there - as opposed to what
TKD.
<br class="">
<br class="">
Of course we all know that TKD is not complete.
<br class="">
<br class="">
For the record, it was me who suggested {vIvechchuqmoH} and Okrand
said
<br class="">
that it's okay. It *might* be possible that he had forgotten about
the
<br class="">
usage of this suffix... But on the other hand, if you regard
[vechchuq]
<br class="">
as one unit, then {vI-[vechchuq]-moH} seems quite plausible.
<br class="">
</blockquote><p class="">I, for one, have no trouble understanding the restriction on
prefixes and reflexive suffixes as meaning, "Use of these
reflexive suffixes <i class="">replaces</i> the presence of an object, so
use the appropriate prefix." Given that Klingon is very flexible
with objects, if some other object that represents something <i class="">other</i>
than the reflexive entity is used, it should include the
appropriate prefix.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ab6c9e2d-655f-7d44-447b-78f151e099ef@gmx.de" class="">
In the meantime, I try to think of other such constructions. What
about
<br class="">
"I cause him to hit himself" - {vIqIp'eghmoH}. Why not?
<br class="">
<br class="">
---
<br class="">
<br class="">
Going a bit further, I think the answer is hidden in the suffix
{-moH}.
<br class="">
TKD gives this small example:
<br class="">
<br class="">
{HIQoymoH} "let me hear (something)"
<br class="">
<br class="">
The suffix indicates "me" as the object of the entire sentence
(i.e. the
<br class="">
-moH), but the translation reveals that the object of the verb is
<br class="">
"something", not "me".</blockquote><p class="">Not exactly. The "(something)" is in parentheses to indicate that
there's an <i class="">implication</i> of hearing "something," but that it
isn't actually stated in the sentence. Indeed, Kruge's line in the
movie is "Let me hear."</p><p class="">We must remember that what Klingon considers an "object" is never
rigorously defined. In fact, it seems that the role of "object"
can be a number of different things, including direct object (<b class="">De'
vIghojmoH</b><i class=""> I teach the information</i>) and indirect
object (<b class="">puq vIghojmoH</b><i class=""> I teach the child</i>). We also
know that direct and indirect objects can inhabit the same
sentence (<b class="">puqvaD De' vIghojmoH</b><i class=""> I teach the child the
information</i>), and that the verb prefix can sometimes refer
to objects that aren't present (<b class="">De' mughojmoH</b><i class=""> He/she
teaches me the information</i>).</p><p class="">So I don't find it at all surprising that we can have a sentence
with a reflexive suffix, causing an object to "disappear" into the
verb, and then add another object referring to something else.</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ab6c9e2d-655f-7d44-447b-78f151e099ef@gmx.de" class=""> So based
on that, I would conclude that when you
<br class="">
have a verb with {-moH}, the used prefix aims at the person being
<br class="">
influenced without respect to what the object of the verb itself
is.
<br class="">
That would explain the usage of {vI-} in {vIvechchuqmoH}.
<br class="">
</blockquote><p class="">I don't think you need such a specific set of criteria. It's not
that you need <b class="">-moH;</b> it's just that <b class="">-moH</b> adds a
whole new semantic role (causer) to the sentence, and the causer
may be acting upon or towards a completely different direct or
indirect object than the agent/experiencer. It's kind of an object
free-for-all. The only real question is which object gets
priority, and it seems to be that the direct object that the agent
is acting upon has priority over any indirect object receiving the
action (which gets pushed into the adverbial soup at the front
with a <b class="">-vaD</b> added to it). Meanwhile, elided first- and
second-person indirect objects can optionally hijack the prefix.</p><p class="">With all that going on, it's no wonder the rule of "use a
no-object prefix with the reflexive suffixes" gets overridden.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:ab6c9e2d-655f-7d44-447b-78f151e099ef@gmx.de" class="">
(Very roughly said, think of -moH as a verb and translate
literally: "I
<br class="">
moH THEM to [vechchuq]")
<br class="">
</blockquote><p class="">Say rather: <b class="">-moH</b> focuses your attention on the causer,
not the doer, but if you can squeeze the doer in there somewhere,
go for it.</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>