jIjatlhpu' jIH:
if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e. couldn't normally take an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH} probably cannot take an object either. How would one shoehorn an explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?
mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
It's not a question of valency, it's a question of syntactic roles. What is having something done to it? That's your object.
jIjatlhqa'pu' jIH:
I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. The two agreement slots of a verb (and thus its valency) correspond to the syntactic roles of subject and object in any case. All I'm getting at is that the way {-'egh} and {-moH} together affect the structure of verb agreement (and therefore syntactic roles) should imply that if you can't add an object to a bare verb {X}, you probably can't add one to the verb {X-'eghmoH} either. Do you disagree?
jang SuStel, jatlh:
I believe I disagree. If I wanted to say I cause the Klingon to please himself, that could be tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH.
I won't rehash this, as ghunchu'wI' has already pointed out that this is problematic. jatlhtaH:
These suffixes cause only semantic changes.
That's not true. {-'egh} doesn't cause a syntactic change per se, requiring only a morphological change in agreement, but {-moH} adds a semantic role to the root verb and forces both syntactic and morphological changes as a result. taH:
Whatever meaning the suffixes add to the verb, it still takes one subject that is the performer of the verb and one object that is the performee of the verb.
Assuming, as you said earlier, that an object can be provided to a given verb. What's the object of {Doq'eghmoH}? taH:
If you want to go through a rigamarole of valences and transitivity and so on, have fun. I feel confident Okrand wasn't thinking about those things; he was thinking of syntax.
Well, Marc is a trained linguist and so I won't dismiss the possibility he was thinking about both, but that's a moot point. In either case, I don't appreciate your dismissive tone here. I'm not intending to do anything with these terms other than find useful ways to describe what's going on, just as you are. taH:
You specifically challenged whether the sentences showed anything exceptional or new, and that's what I responded to. It's exceptional in that it explicitly violates two rules about -chuq, whatever the justification. It's new in that no one ever said anything about it before.
But we have! I raised this example back in 2012 when we were going over similar issues about {-'eghmoH} as it relates to {tuQ} (http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00069.html), and several of us, including you, discussed that example explicitly at that time. For some reason your messages on the topic are not saved to the KLI list archives, but a couple others (one replying directly to you) still exist: http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00077.html http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html The thread was called, ironically, "Semantic roles with -moH... again". QeS 'utlh