prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}
The verb muv means "to join". There's the Ca'Non sentence: Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos Which actually means "kahless caused the tribes of kronos to join each other". And now let's come to the prefix trick. qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself something (which isn't specified) SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other something (which isn't specified) taj qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself a knife taj SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other a knife In the above last two examples, seemingly/apparently the prefix trick rule isn't violated. So, seemingly/apparently we *can* use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}. Right ? ~ Qa'yIn
On 7/8/2020 8:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
So, seemingly/apparently we *can* use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}.
You're basing this on the examples that you yourself constructed, not on canon. We have insufficient information to draw any firm conclusions. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Your confusion here is being caused by what seems to be a special property of {-moH} that when there is no object of the verb root, the subject of the verb root can be treated as the object of {-moH}. The examples in The Klingon Dictionary all follow this exact pattern. This would make it appear that the canon example and your first two suggestions are not actually using the prefix trick, but rather this particular property of {-moH}. Now I suppose you could argue that this property of {-moH} does not exist and they are all examples of the prefix trick being used with {-moH} but the problem is that not all of them follow the "first/second person object" part of the prefix trick and so that doesn't seem to apply. In any case, I continue to object to your last two suggestions. I don't support the use of the Type 1 suffixes to refer to the indirect object at this time. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:13:58 AM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH} The verb muv means "to join". There's the Ca'Non sentence: Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos Which actually means "kahless caused the tribes of kronos to join each other". And now let's come to the prefix trick. qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself something (which isn't specified) SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other something (which isn't specified) taj qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself a knife taj SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other a knife In the above last two examples, seemingly/apparently the prefix trick rule isn't violated. So, seemingly/apparently we *can* use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}. Right ? ~ Qa'yIn
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. Those were simpler times. When Okrand eventually got to greater depth on how {-moH} works when the action of the verb has an object, I… quit speaking Klingon for maybe a year or so… 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. The point is, if I wanted to say, “I will teach you the Klingon language,” with the interpretation I had in those simpler days, I would have formed what is apparently a badly formed Klingon sentence: *{tlhIngan Hol’e’ vIghojmoH.}* “On the topic of the Klingon language, I will cause you to learn it." I still don’t understand how this is poorly formed. It makes total sense to me. But, Okrand’s version of this is: SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH. 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. I, however, got hung up on the causation translation, which came out “For you, I cause the Klingon language to learn.” I was wrong, but I was stubborn. I was weirdly offended by the apparent change in the rules on the use of {-moH}. I foolishly took this personally. I quit using the language for an extended period. Then I came back to use it, but refused to use this specific construction. Now, I simply don’t feel called upon to use the construction. It exists. I acknowledge that it exists. It’s not my language. There’s a lot I can do with it without having to deal with this particular mess. I know that SuStel believes that it is simple and okay and not messy at all. Good for him. I’m glad he’s found that contentment. He’s obviously right. And now, someone wants to focus on combining this specific mess with {-‘egh} and {-chuq}. wejpuH. Once again, I find myself impressed by two features of the Klingon language and its speakers on this list. 1. I’m impressed that Okrand came up with this brilliant, little jewel of a language in very little time with a grammar and vocabulary that is this expressive and versatile, alien, yet natural, requiring only a slow trickle of new vocabulary and almost no new grammar in the decades that followed its original formation. It’s amazing how much you can say, using the tools Okrand has given us. 2. I’m impressed at how common it is on this list to ignore the magic described in item 1 and fixate on pushing the limits of the messiest, most crippled details of the affixes in combination, and on overburdening relative clauses or the prefix trick, or comparatives, or long strings of dependent clauses or ambiguous wordings as if breaking the language were the only interesting thing that anyone could possibly do with it. It’s like the way torturing lab animals is considered science, regardless of whether any actual knowledge is extracted from the practice. I should go back to French or ASL or German, or Malasian, or Cherokee, or Turkish, or take up some new language and leave Klingon forever. At least that would make someone happy… I like making people happy. Yes. Quarantine is making me crazy. Mwahahahahaha…. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 8, 2020, at 8:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The verb muv means "to join".
There's the Ca'Non sentence:
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
Which actually means "kahless caused the tribes of kronos to join each other".
And now let's come to the prefix trick.
qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself something (which isn't specified)
SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other something (which isn't specified)
taj qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself a knife
taj SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other a knife
In the above last two examples, seemingly/apparently the prefix trick rule isn't violated.
So, seemingly/apparently we *can* use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}.
Right ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/8/2020 12:01 PM, Will Martin wrote:
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.
Those were simpler times.
But that's just it. TKD doesn't say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about *-moH* 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 *tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH.* You made up the wrong rule and believed it to be a rule Okrand made up. (And I don't mean "you" as in you, personally.) When we got *ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH,* 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. 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.
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.
No. The subject of a verb with *-moH,* 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 *la'vaD Hol ghojmoH Sogh,* the *Sogh* is the cause, and the *la'* is the agent, because the *la'* is the one that deliberately performs *Sogh.* 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 *Hol* is the theme. The terminology in TKD is obviously inadequate to address this, because it doesn't even try to address it. It presents examples of *-moH* 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 *-vaD* 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 *-moH*). And the rule that DOES seem to accommodate every example we have is this: when using *-moH,* 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. This explains how *tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH* (TKD) works. This explains how *ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH* (S20) works. This explains how *[**puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH* (PB) works. It explains everything. As long as it continues to explain everything, it is the best model for *-moH* we have.
But, Okrand’s version of this is:
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.
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.
It's not /for you./ That's a general benefactive interpretation. *-vaD* nouns play two separate semantic roles. They can be a general benefactive, as in *Qu'vaD lI'*/It is useful for the mission,/ or they can be indirect objects, as in*yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'*/The prisoner gave the officer the knife./ In the former, you would not interpret *Qu'vaD* as /received by the mission,/ and in the latter you would not interpret *yaSvaD* as /for the benefit of the officer./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 14:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The verb muv means "to join".
There's the Ca'Non sentence:
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
Which actually means "kahless caused the tribes of kronos to join each other".
Right, the tribes join *each other* (and not something unspecified). That is, it means something like {muvchuq tuqmey. 'e' qaSmoH qeylIS.}
And now let's come to the prefix trick.
qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself something (which isn't specified)
This is like {bInob'egh. 'e' vIqaSmoH}. The thing given isn't unspecified, because {-moH} indicates that the verb acts on the performer of the action. Your sentence (if it's even grammatical) means "I cause you to give yourself." Also, I don't see how this is an application of the prefix trick. What's the version of the sentence where the indirect object has been made explicit? (For example, {taj qanob} means {SoHvaD taj vInob}. Is {qanob'eghmoH} supposed to mean *{SoHvaD vInob'eghmoH}?)
SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other something (which isn't specified)
If Kahless had said to the tribes, {SamuvchuqmoH}, it would mean the tribes join *each other*. Similarly, {SanobchuqmoH} means "I cause you to give each other" (i.e., what you give isn't unspecified, it's each other). {Sunobchuq. 'e' vIqaSmoH.} Again, how is your sentence an application of the prefix trick? What's the version with the indirect object made explicit? *{tlhIHvaD vInobchuqmoH}?
taj qanob'eghmoH I cause you to give yourself a knife
taj SanobchuqmoH I cause you to give each other a knife
In the above last two examples, seemingly/apparently the prefix trick rule isn't violated.
It doesn't appear to be violated because it isn't being applied.
So, seemingly/apparently we *can* use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}.
Right ?
I can see no evidence for this claim based on what you're written above. -- De'vID
SuStel:
We have insufficient information to draw any firm conclusions. janSIy: I don't support the use of the Type 1 suffixes to refer to the indirect object at this time. De'vID: I can see no evidence for this claim based on what you're written above.
ok, thanks ! I didn't expect that things would be so complicated. Although, even if we could use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH} I wouldn't use it since it is disturbingly similar to greek/english. In any case though, it's good to discuss what can and cannot be done, so thanks for your replies, which (prefix trick aside) furthered my understanding in what is the actual meaning of {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}. ~ Qa'yIn
wa’maH wej. bIghojbejmeH bIqeqnIS. reH qIgh neHlu’, ‘ach qeqtaHghach QaQ law’ Hoch QaQ puS. jIHvaD qay’ qeqtaHghach qubmo' potlh vIjatlhbogh ‘ej tlhIngan Hol vIlo’taHvIS reH ramwI’mey vIjatlh vIneHbe’. qoH jIH. DIvI’ Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS, pIj ramwI’mey vIjatlhqangba’, ‘ej DIvI’ Hol vIghojmeH qeq vIpoQbe’ba’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 9, 2020, at 3:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
We have insufficient information to draw any firm conclusions. janSIy: I don't support the use of the Type 1 suffixes to refer to the indirect object at this time. De'vID: I can see no evidence for this claim based on what you're written above.
ok, thanks ! I didn't expect that things would be so complicated.
Although, even if we could use the prefix trick with {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH} I wouldn't use it since it is disturbingly similar to greek/english.
In any case though, it's good to discuss what can and cannot be done, so thanks for your replies, which (prefix trick aside) furthered my understanding in what is the actual meaning of {-'eghmoH} and {-chuqmoH}.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
janSIy . -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin