On 12/8/2016 10:35 AM, Lieven wrote:

I wrote:

...

What do you think about: {torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}

Am 08.12.2016 um 13:49 schrieb terrence.donnelly:

...

"So far as the knife is concerned, Kruge makes Torg give Maltz"?

SuStel wrote:

...

I don't see two objects. I see a beneficiary/indirect object (not an object in the Klingon sentence position way), a topic (not an object), and *matlh* (an object). I read this sentence as /as for knives, Kruge makes Torg give Maltz/ (he is handing Maltz over).

I was pretty sure that this phrase was not so clearly correct an cause trouble.

Basically I was thinking of the english phrase:

"Kruge makes Maltz give Torg the knife" Problem: "give torg"

Whats confusing is the order of the words, or the amount of objects

{matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give" We all agree on that, right?

Not necessarily. p/aq'batlh/ gives us the sentence *ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH*/I will... teach him life and death./ By the same pattern, one can say that *matlh nobmoH Qugh* means /Kruge causes (someone) to give Maltz (to someone)./ But I think it can ALSO mean /Kruge causes Maltz to give./ //

Question: what does maltz give? taj!

Let's tryx to throw in the question word in the existing sentence

{nuq matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give WHAT?"

Okay or not?? Where would be the better place for the word to stand?

Yes, this is the classic problem, and the way Okrand has resolved it is has been to (1) make the causer the subject, (2) make the causee the indirect object with *-vaD*, and (3) keep the thing acted upon as the direct object. Following Okrand's pattern, the sentence would be *matlhvaD nuq nobmoH Qugh.* The reasoning behind this has not been explained to us, but I think it goes as follows: adding *-moH* makes the subject into the causer of the action rather than the doer of the action (as we are told in its description). *-moH* does not change the meaning of "object" as thing the action is done to ("direct object"), so whatever was there before remains there. HOWEVER, the doer of the action now has no grammatical position. It gets as "close" to the object position as it can. If there is no direct object in the object position, the doer can go there; if that position is filled the doer becomes an "indirect object" with *-vaD.*

THat's why I say that nob has two objects: malt is caused to give, and the knife is the thing given (please no lesson about indirect or direct object now, stay on the topic [no pun intended])

Direct and indirect objects are at the heart of this issue.

Only few days ago, we found an example (I think from SuStel), telling us that the topicalized noun with {-'e'} may stand at different place than usual. HaqwI''e' DaH yISam --> {taj'e' DaH yInob}

As for the knife, give it now. --> As for the knife, make maltz give it now. taj'e', matlh nobmoH Qugh = "As for the knife, Kruge causes Maltz to give"

Adding torghvaD just tell you to whom the knife is given:

taj'e', torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh or torghvaD taj'e'matlh nobmoH Qugh

= "As for the knife, Kruge causes Maltz to give for the benefit of Torg"

I still think it works, although I agree it looks very awkward.

According to Okrand's pattern, in your sentence *Qugh* is the causer, *torgh* is the doer, and *matlh* is the done-to. Kruge makes Torg give Maltz. I think, ultimately, it all comes down to Klingon "objects" not always being exactly "direct objects." They're direct or indirect as needed, with direct having dominance over indirect. Whether you interpret "direct object" as "doer of the action" or "causee" depends on whether the former already exists. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 12/8/2016 2:58 PM, Lieven wrote:

Am 08.12.2016 um 17:42 schrieb SuStel:

...

...

{matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give" We all agree on that, right?

Not necessarily. p/aq'batlh/ gives us the sentence *ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH*/I will... teach him life and death./

Don't forget that PB is not always 100% to be taken as a guide. In this example, I think that ghojmoH is taken literally as "teach".

Why? Because you favor that interpretation? Do you have any reason to expect that *ghojmoH *isn't being treated as *ghoj + -moH*? Remember, Okrand says that verb+suffix is not treated like a new verb.

Either A) The object of ghojmoH is the person learning, so here it is "life and death" or B) maybe the use of -vaD takes over the object of the moH-ed verb?

The object of the verb here is explicitly *yIn Hegh je.* That is not in dispute; it's right there on the page. The role of *-vaD* is given multiple names in /TKD /(beneficiary, indirect object)/,/ but it is all basically this: the noun is in some way affected indirectly by the action of the verb. The exact nature of how the noun is affected depends on the meaning of the verb. *puqwI'vaD paqmey vIje'*/I buy books for my child /(the buying doesn't directly affect my child; he just gets the books afterward as a result of the buying); *Qu'vaD lI'*//*De' */the information//is useful for the mission/**(the information's being useful doesn't directly affect the mission; but the mission will experience an indirect effect because of the information). When you add *-moH*, you're telling the listener "the subject isn't doing the verb; the subject is causing something else to do the verb." *-moH* does /not/ tell you "the subject causes the object to do the verb." So if we have *torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh,* we interpret it as follows: *Qugh* causes giving to happen, but is not the giver; *matlh* is given (because nowhere does /TKD/ say that *-moH* does anything but change the role of the subject); and *torgh* is in some way indirectly affected by the giving (being indirectly affected by giving usually means something is given to you). BUT... /noun/*-vaD nob* doesn't /have/ to mean "give to /noun/"; that indirect effect could refer to something else. Maybe Torg is the captain of their sportsball team and Maltz is really irritating, so Kruge gives Maltz away to another team for Torg's ease of mind. This is not what one would normally expect in seeing /noun/*-vaD nob,* but it's not impossible. ALSO BUT... we see verbs of state or quality add objects all the time whenever they get *-moH* on them. Why don't we say **tIjwI'ghomvaD jIchenmoH* instead of *tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH*? This is where it gets unclear, and I think the answer is that when an action doesn't act upon a noun the indirect object "collapses" into the object position because it's like a direct object of the entire formation /verb/*-moH.* Instead of a "direct object" in the "object" position, an "indirect object" fills it. This is what lojmIt tI'wI' nuv liked to call the "object of causation," though I think that misses the nuance of what's going on here.

...

By the same pattern, one can say that *matlh nobmoH Qugh* means /Kruge causes (someone) to give Maltz (to someone)./ But I think it can ALSO mean /Kruge causes Maltz to give./

Well, the latter is definitely sure. I had a look at TKD again now, and it says "[moH] indicates that the subject is causing a change of condition"

The given example {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH} is translated as "I cause a boarding party to be formed".

literally translated that would be {chen ghom 'e' vI-[cause]}

a parallel to this is {matlh vInobmoH} "I cause maltz to give"

Exchanging the subject and adapting the suffixes gives {matlh nobmoH Qugh} "Kruge makes maltz give"

Following my above mentioned twist, this is {nob matlh 'e' [cause] Qugh}

The object of the nob in that phrase comes first, so {taj nob matlh 'e' [cause] Qugh} and that's why I replaced the sentence back and got: {taj matlh nobmoH Qugh}

And now, to marc the topic, I've added the -'e' {taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}

I still think that's a good workaround.

I can understand it, but it's not what Okrand has done.

...

Yes, this is the classic problem, and the way Okrand has resolved it is

Thanks for the explanation. Can you tell me wher to find examples for this (not nitpicking intended, I really wanna know and understand.)

There are only the two unambiguous examples I've been bringing up: *tuQtaHvIS Hem. ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH */He wears it proudly as a reminder of his heritage. /(SkyBox S20) *petaQvam vIqopbej / QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH / 'ej 'oy' SIQ ghaH */I will bring this p'takh to justice / And teach him life and death / The slow and painful way!/ (PB) There are other examples of *-moH* on potentially transitive verbs, but they're all ambiguously unprefixed or prefixed in a way that could indicate the prefix trick (so we don't know whether they're referring to a direct or indirect object; e.g. *HIQoymoH*/let me hear!/). **

...

has been to (1) make the causer the subject, (2) make the causee the indirect object with *-vaD*, and (3) keep the thing acted upon as the direct object.

Following Okrand's pattern, the sentence would be *matlhvaD nuq nobmoH Qugh.*

{matlhvaD lojmIt poSmoH Qugh.} Does Kruge open the door for Maltz, (my interpretation) or does Kruge cause Maltz to open the door? (your interpretation) o_O

or can it be both and it's this ambiguity that lead this discussion?

It can be both, I believe. At least until Okrand clarifies. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 8 December 2016 at 16:35, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

taj'e', torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh or torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh

= "As for the knife, Kruge causes Maltz to give for the benefit of Torg"

I still think it works, although I agree it looks very awkward.

Same as how others have commented, I also read this as "As for knives, Kruge causes Torg to give Maltz (Maltz is given)". It's grammatical, but unless Maltz is a knife, it makes no sense. Consider: {torghvaD nuH'e' betleH nobmoH Qugh} "As for weapons, Kruge causes Torg to give a bat'leth". Given a complex sentence like this (say, in the SkyBox cards), Okrand's style has been to chop it up, like {torghvaD taj nob matlh. 'e' raD [or {qaSmoH} or whatever] Qugh}. -- De'vID