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.

No. Except when dealing with -lu', the prefix always means exactly what it says. DI-, for example, means first-person plural subject and third-person plural object.

What the prefix does NOT do is tell you what the semantic roles of the subject and object are.

This is not unique. The suffixes {-lu’}, {-‘egh}, and {-chuq} change how we interpret the prefix,

-lu' does; -'egh and -chuq do not. According to TKD, -'egh and -chuq require no-object prefixes, because there are no objects when you've got a reflexive subject. Evidence tells us that when -moH 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.

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).

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.

tlhIngan Hol qaghojmoH I teach you Klingon. The prefix qa- I—you (singular) refers to the subject I, the causer, and the (indirect) object you, the experiencer.

tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH I teach Klingon. The prefix vI- I—he/she/it/they refers to the subject I, the causer, and the (direct) object Klingon language, the theme.

SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH I teach you Klingon. The prefix vI- I—he/she/it/they refers to the subject I, the causer, and the (direct) object Klingon language, the theme. The you is an indirect object that the prefix does not agree with.

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.

It is.

With {-moH}, “be hot” changes meaning to “cause-the-state-of-being-hot”, and THEN you process the other affixes.

So, {jItuj'eghmoH} means, “I cause-the-state-of-being-hot myself.”

Not necessarily. I might say, for instance, puq vIghojnISmoH. It might mean I need to teach the child, or it might mean I cause the child to need to learn.

You simply have to recognize that when -moH 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 -moH, but not necessarily for those with it.

Example from TKD: HeghqangmoHlu'pu' it made him/her willing to die. The thing that is causing the situation is indefinite, and the -moH and -pu' apply to it. He/she has possession of the dying and the willingness. Heghqang ghaH but -moHlu'pu' by the indefinite subject. But this would also be the word for one was willing to make him/her die. Which suffix belongs to which entity is ambiguous.

Similarly, {nuvvaDvetlh tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} means, “For the benefit of that guy, I cause-learning the Klingon language.”

You obviously meant nuvvetlhvaD.

By comparison, he didn’t do squat to explain how {-moH} would change the way that a verb relates to its direct object.

Pretty much.

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.

I'm sure Okrand never even thought about how chen tIjwI'ghom becomes tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH when he wrote it in TKD. It just seemed to make sense. chenmoH is make, so I make a boarding party. I'm pretty sure that's as far as he'd worked it out in his head.

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.

As you show with your gooder 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 gooder when you know perfectly well that's not right.

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.

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.

There’s the way it ought to be, and then there’s the way it is.

It oughtn't be gooder; that's simply misapplication of a formula. As I've been talking about. There are deep historical reasons why we say better instead of gooder; it's not an arbitrary irregularity someone dreamed up one day.

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. 

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.]

We look at the entire verb. If there is a -lu', we use a special set of prefixes. If there is a -moH, 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.

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.

If {-‘egh} or {-chuq} are there, we have to go back to the prefix and reinterpret it, assuming it is a “no object” prefix.

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.

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.

[Perhaps that’s a mental image you’d like to be able to un-see. Too late, now.]

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.

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}.

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.

If we HAVE already been through {-chuq} or {-‘egh} and {-moH}, then our heads explode. Game over.

“In that room, one teaches each other to speak Klingon.”

{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol lughojchuqmoHlu’.}

or perhaps

{pa’vetlhDaq tlhIngan Hol’e’ jeSwI’pu’vaD lughojchuqmoHlu’.} [Cue sound effects for the Lemmings game after clicking on the Time Bomb button]

[and one wonders why Bingon and other attempts to programmatically translate Klingon tend to render frequently erroneous results.]

So, yes, I can use {-moH} in the full glory of it’s functionality.

I just wish Okrand had done a gooder job of explaining it.

It's not as complicated as you're making it. If you stopped thinking syntactically, you'd see that.

Take a verb with -moH. 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. -lu' 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.

After that, you simply have to look to canon to determine how Klingon juggles semantic roles in various combinations.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name