there is something I noticed on {-moH}. If we use it on an intransitive verb it makes it transitive: jISaQ I cry qaSaQmoH I make you cry But what if we place it on a transitive ? jIchoH I change qachoH I change you qachoHmoH I cause you to change jIyuv I push qayuv I push you qayuvmoH I cause you to push I don't know how to describe it in grammar terms, but it seems that as soon as we place the {-moH} on a transitive verb, then the object can't "do what the verb says to someone or something else". If I write qayuvmoH for I make you push, then I may obviously be saying "I make you push", but how do I say "I make you push the table" ? raS qayuvmoH ? Is this correct ? can we have the {raS} just sitting there unmarked ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If I write qayuvmoH for I make you push, then I may obviously be saying "I make you push", but how do I say "I make you push the table" ?
This is when you use -vaD, qar'a'? SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH - I cause you to push the table HoDvaD la' HIvmoH Sogh - The lieutenant causes the Captain to attack the Commander targhvaD verengan SopmoH tlhIngan - The Klingon causes the targ to eat the Ferengi qurgh
On 12/6/2016 1:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
there is something I noticed on {-moH}.
If we use it on an intransitive verb it makes it transitive:
jISaQ I cry qaSaQmoH I make you cry
But what if we place it on a transitive ?
jIchoH I change qachoH I change you qachoHmoH I cause you to change
jIyuv I push qayuv I push you qayuvmoH I cause you to push
I don't know how to describe it in grammar terms, but it seems that as soon as we place the {-moH} on a transitive verb, then the object can't "do what the verb says to someone or something else".
If I write qayuvmoH for I make you push, then I may obviously be saying "I make you push", but how do I say "I make you push the table" ?
raS qayuvmoH ? Is this correct ? can we have the {raS} just sitting there unmarked ?
Shame on you for not paying attention! The current thinking, supported by a couple of canonical sentences, seems to be that your desired sentence would be: *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH.* My explanation for this is that one must do more than blindly follow syntax; one must examine the semantic role each noun is playing. There is an action, *yuv.* Someone pushes the table, *raS yuv.* I cause the table to be pushed, *raS vIyuvmoH* (doesn't say who pushes it; I cause the action so I'm the subject and it's done to the table so the table is the object). I cause you to push it, *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH;* you're the receiver of what I did (cause the pushing). We can play this game with other sentences: *quHDaj qaw */he//remembers his heritage /*quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj*/the sash reminds (someone) of his heritage /*ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj*/the sash reminds him of his heritage/ *yIn Hegh je ghoj*/he learns life and death /*yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH*/I teach life and death (to someone) /*ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH*/I teach him life and death/ Guess what! Those are based on canon sentences: *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*/I will bring this p'takh to justice / And teach him life and death/ Now remember, and this is extremely important: this is perhaps the most controversial, war-causing, pain-inducing topic on this list /*EVER.*/ Be very careful when talking about it. Think before you post./**/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qurgh and SuStel, thank you for taking the time to explain all this ! ..once more I came across an area of grammar, I was totally unaware of ! thank qeylIS for writing today's "the passing", during which I came across this matter. After reading your replies, I think I understand how this works; the subject of the {-moH}ed verb causes the {-vaD}ed noun to do whatever the verb says. the question however is "what prefix goes on the {-moH}ed verb. and seemingly this is determined like this: the one who causes the action is the subject, and whatever is before the {-moH}ed verb is the object. So, lets write some examples: they caused us to see the cat maHvaD vIghro' luleghmoH they made you (plural) correct the student tlhIHvaD ghojwI' lulughmoH you (plural) made them touch the cat chaHvaD vIghro' boHotmoH we made you (plural) touch the cat tlhIHvaD vIghro' wIHotmoH we made you (plural) touch the cats tlhIHvaD vIghro'mey DIHotmoH are the above correct ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 6 Dec 2016 8:42 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/6/2016 1:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
there is something I noticed on {-moH}.
If we use it on an intransitive verb it makes it transitive:
jISaQ I cry qaSaQmoH I make you cry
But what if we place it on a transitive ?
jIchoH I change qachoH I change you qachoHmoH I cause you to change
jIyuv I push qayuv I push you qayuvmoH I cause you to push
I don't know how to describe it in grammar terms, but it seems that as soon as we place the {-moH} on a transitive verb, then the object can't "do what the verb says to someone or something else".
If I write qayuvmoH for I make you push, then I may obviously be saying "I make you push", but how do I say "I make you push the table" ?
raS qayuvmoH ? Is this correct ? can we have the {raS} just sitting there unmarked ?
Shame on you for not paying attention!
The current thinking, supported by a couple of canonical sentences, seems to be that your desired sentence would be: *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH.*
My explanation for this is that one must do more than blindly follow syntax; one must examine the semantic role each noun is playing. There is an action, *yuv.* Someone pushes the table, *raS yuv.* I cause the table to be pushed, *raS vIyuvmoH* (doesn't say who pushes it; I cause the action so I'm the subject and it's done to the table so the table is the object). I cause you to push it, *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH;* you're the receiver of what I did (cause the pushing).
We can play this game with other sentences:
*quHDaj qaw **he* * remembers his heritage **quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj* * the sash reminds (someone) of his heritage **ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj** the sash reminds him of his heritage*
*yIn Hegh je ghoj* * he learns life and death **yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH* * I teach life and death (to someone) **ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH** I teach him life and death*
Guess what! Those are based on canon sentences:
*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** I will bring this p'takh to justice / And teach him life and death*
Now remember, and this is extremely important: this is perhaps the most controversial, war-causing, pain-inducing topic on this list *EVER.* Be very careful when talking about it. Think before you post.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Yes, you've got it. The verb prefix reflects the subject and object, as it always does, regardless of the semantic roles those words are playing in the sentence. On 12/6/2016 2:23 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
After reading your replies, I think I understand how this works;
the subject of the {-moH}ed verb causes the {-vaD}ed noun to do whatever the verb says. the question however is "what prefix goes on the {-moH}ed verb. and seemingly this is determined like this: the one who causes the action is the subject, and whatever is before the {-moH}ed verb is the object.
So, lets write some examples:
they caused us to see the cat maHvaD vIghro' luleghmoH
they made you (plural) correct the student tlhIHvaD ghojwI' lulughmoH
you (plural) made them touch the cat chaHvaD vIghro' boHotmoH
we made you (plural) touch the cat tlhIHvaD vIghro' wIHotmoH
we made you (plural) touch the cats tlhIHvaD vIghro'mey DIHotmoH
are the above correct ?
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:41 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The current thinking, supported by a couple of canonical sentences, seems to be that your desired sentence would be: *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH.*
My explanation for this is that one must do more than blindly follow syntax; one must examine the semantic role each noun is playing. There is an action, *yuv.* Someone pushes the table, *raS yuv.* I cause the table to be pushed, *raS vIyuvmoH* (doesn't say who pushes it; I cause the action so I'm the subject and it's done to the table so the table is the object). I cause you to push it, *SoHvaD raS vIyuvmoH;* you're the receiver of what I did (cause the pushing).
This is something I puzzled over for quite a while: what role is played by the object of a transitive verb plus *-moH*? In the case of *raS vIyuvmoH*, obviously the table isn't doing the pushing. But in the second example of this type of construction in TKD, *HIQoymoH *<let me hear (something)>, the object is the speaker, who would be the one doing the hearing. So in some cases in which there is only an object without a Type 5 suffix, the object can assume either role unambiguously despite the apparent lack of a fixed grammatical rule to determine it, just as in English one can say both "She teaches French" and "She teaches the children." Of course, since both types of object are frequently required, as in "She teaches the children French," I was delighted when I learned about the *-vaD*/*-moH* construction. But here's a question about *HIQoymoH*: what if you meant to say <let me be heard> instead? Depending on context, couldn't you use the same expression? Alternatively, my first instinct is just to avoid the whole *-moH* problem and say *vIQoylu' 'e' yIchaw'*. Or are there better ways to say <let me be heard>? Here's another question: can* -vaD* always work with *-moH* on a transitive verb to make an unambiguous sentence? Is the noun plus *-vaD* always going to be that which is made to do something, or could it still be the beneficiary of the action, as with *nob*?* To expand on the example from TKD, might you construe *beqvaD HIQoymoH* as <let the crew hear me> or <let me hear for the crew> or both? (My expectation is that a sentence using the *-vaD*/*-moH* construction is likely to be ambiguous out of context, but since it's a known construction, the favored interpretation is that the noun with *-vaD* performs the action of the verb, and that context would make it clear in almost any case.) ~mIp'av *Obviously there's no way to add *-moH* to the sentence *torghvaD taj nob matlh* to make Kruge cause Maltz to give Torg the knife. Or is there?
On 12/7/2016 12:06 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
This is something I puzzled over for quite a while: what role is played by the object of a transitive verb plus *-moH*? In the case of *raS vIyuvmoH*, obviously the table isn't doing the pushing. But in the second example of this type of construction in TKD, *HIQoymoH *<let me hear (something)>, the object is the speaker, who would be the one doing the hearing. So in some cases in which there is only an object without a Type 5 suffix, the object can assume either role unambiguously despite the apparent lack of a fixed grammatical rule to determine it, just as in English one can say both "She teaches French" and "She teaches the children." Of course, since both types of object are frequently required, as in "She teaches the children French," I was delighted when I learned about the *-vaD*/*-moH* construction.
There are more things at work here. The prefix trick teaches us that the prefix doesn't always indicate the direct object; something it refers to an indirect object. This might be *QoQ HIQoymoH*/cause me to hear the music, /in which case the direct object in the object position is third-person *QoQ* but the prefix agrees with an unstated indirect object, *jIH.*
But here's a question about *HIQoymoH*: what if you meant to say <let me be heard> instead? Depending on context, couldn't you use the same expression? Alternatively, my first instinct is just to avoid the whole *-moH* problem and say *vIQoylu' 'e' yIchaw'*. Or are there better ways to say <let me be heard>?
Since there is no verb in Klingon that means /be heard,/ you have to build the meaning off of *Qoy* /hear./ What does /let me be heard/ mean? It means /cause someone to hear me./ *HIQoymoH.* Oops. You can remove some ambiguity by making the /someone/ explicit: *vay'vaD HIQoymoH.*
Here's another question: can*-vaD* always work with *-moH* on a transitive verb to make an unambiguous sentence? Is the noun plus *-vaD* always going to be that which is made to do something, or could it still be the beneficiary of the action, as with *nob*?* To expand on the example from TKD, might you construe *beqvaD HIQoymoH* as <let the crew hear me> or <let me hear for the crew> or both? (My expectation is that a sentence using the *-vaD*/*-moH* construction is likely to be ambiguous out of context, but since it's a known construction, the favored interpretation is that the noun with *-vaD* performs the action of the verb, and that context would make it clear in almost any case.)
It remains ambiguous.
*Obviously there's no way to add *-moH* to the sentence *torghvaD taj nob matlh* to make Kruge cause Maltz to give Torg the knife. Or is there?
Not that I know of. *-moH* simply changes the subject from the entity doing the action into the entity causing the action to be done. The object changes from indicating what the action is done to, to either what the /action/ is done to or what the /causing/ is done to. If the sentences has both, then what the causing is done to is considered an indirect object and given *-vaD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e' (cause) Quj , if we had a verb meaning "to cause" ??? ----Original message----
From : bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com Date : 07/12/2016 - 05:06 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org ..... *Obviously there's no way to add -moH to the sentence torghvaD taj nob matlh to make Kruge cause Maltz to give Torg the knife. Or is there?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Anthony Appleyard < a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote: *torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e'* (cause) *Quj* , if we had a verb meaning "to cause" ??? Quj DaghItlhHa', Qugh DaHech. 'a Quj vIQujtaHvIS, rut Qugh 'oH. vImughnISchugh, ghaytan jIjatlh <ra'mo' Qugh, torghvaD taj nob matlh>. ngaj mu'tlhegh 'ej qaSmoHmeH mIw DuHqu' Del. mu'tlhegh ngajqu' chaw'meH chaq ma' pab Sovbe'lu'bogh. DIpmey mI'mo' yIrlaHbogh tlhIngan wot rut jImer. ~mIp'av
Am 08.12.2016 um 06:37 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
*torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e'* (cause) *Quj* , if we had a verb meaning "to cause" ???
I didn't read the rest of this discussion, but when I see you mention "verb meaning to cause" I immeditely think ", well what about {-moH}?" making it two sentences makes it easy: {matlh nobmoH Qugh.} {torghvaD taj nob matlh.} Okay, some may say that's cheating. We have other verbs: {torghvaD taj nob matlh 'e' ra' Qugh} The problem within this topic seems to be the direct and indirect object thing, isn't it? What do you think about: {torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh} having {nob} refer to two differetn objects? I'm sure though that the following is grammatically clear: {torghvaD taj nob matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh} taj is the object of the first {nob}, [matlh'e' nobmoHbogh Qugh] is the subject of the phrase, where the second {nob} takes {matlh} as the object. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 12/8/2016 2:10 AM, Lieven wrote:
What do you think about: {torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh} having {nob} refer to two differetn objects?
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). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (7)
-
Anthony Appleyard -
Ed Bailey -
ghunchu'wI' -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel