read this : Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos ..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ? according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too. now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too. mop qIj
On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together. Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}. {jor bIH} "they explode" {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode" The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}. {muvchuq chaH} "they join each other" {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other" It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes. -- De'vID
ok, De'vID thank you ! On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.
Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.
{jor bIH} "they explode" {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"
The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.
{muvchuq chaH} "they join each other" {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"
It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
.. I came back. In the spirit of what we just said, would you accept {qaqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself" ? On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, De'vID thank you !
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.
Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.
{jor bIH} "they explode" {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"
The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.
{muvchuq chaH} "they join each other" {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"
It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
HIvqa' veqlargh ! I meant vIqIp'eghmoH for "I caused him to hit himself". On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
.. I came back.
In the spirit of what we just said, would you accept
{qaqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself" ?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, De'vID thank you !
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.
Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.
{jor bIH} "they explode" {bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"
The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.
{muvchuq chaH} "they join each other" {chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"
It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from /paq'batlh./) Apparently, the rules governing *-chuq*—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the *-moH* tells us that the subject /causes/ the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency, making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix, increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash). Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH} naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've formed the sentence the same way. Schematically: S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH}) S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh}) S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq}) S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH}) S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural entities. I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence. - André 2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from *paq'batlh.*)
Apparently, the rules governing *-chuq*—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the *-moH* tells us that the subject *causes* the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to unite" v. "cause to unite each other"? The latter almost sounds like they unite without Kahless as the impetus for their union. ter'eS From: André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ? It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency, making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix, increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash). Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH} naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've formed the sentence the same way. Schematically: S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH}) S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh}) S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq}) S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH}) S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural entities. I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence. - André 2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>: On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: read this : Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos ..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ? according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too. now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too. Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from paq'batlh.) Apparently, the rules governing -chuq—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the -moH tells us that the subject causes the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
what about the : {vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself". is it acceptable ? On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to unite" v. "cause to unite each other"? The latter almost sounds like they unite without Kahless as the impetus for their union.
ter'eS
________________________________ From: André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?
It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency, making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix, increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash).
Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH} naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've formed the sentence the same way.
Schematically: S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH}) S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh}) S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq}) S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH})
S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural entities.
I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence.
- André
2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from paq'batlh.) Apparently, the rules governing -chuq—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the -moH tells us that the subject causes the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Yes, I think there's nothing wrong with {vIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause him to hit himself" or {vIqIpchuqmoH} "I cause them to hit each other". Actually, there is something that might be interesting: We know that sometimes suffixes (with the exception of rovers) refer just back to the original verb root, and sometimes refer to the stem (i.e. everything preceding it). Usually there's no big difference in interpretation, although we did wonder before about sentences that could not be interpreted "linearly" (i.e. reading them from right to left). I can't reproduce such an example now, because my computer with my Klingon sentence collection is broken (it was something with {-nIS}, where the scope of "must" included something after the {-nIS}, if I remember right)... So in a word containing {-'eghmoH}, the order is ambiguous, if all agents are third person, because we get a zero prefix then. So, {qIp'eghmoH} could mean 1) "A causes B to hit himself." or 2) "A causes himself to hit B." With other persons involved this becomes more clear, as it would be {vIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause him to hit himself." and {jIqIp'eghmoH} "I cause myself to hit (him)." - actually I believe the latter sentence is strictly intransitive and doesn't even imply that I hit someone or something (the verb semantics do, though). So, assuming that {'em} "to vomit" is transitive (which we don't know, but let's take it as an example), I can make myself vomit: {jI'em'eghmoH}, but I cannot make myself vomit the poison I acidentally swallowed: *{tar jI'em'eghmoH}. One might have to say {tar vI'emmeH jI'em'eghmoH}. So a verb containing {-chuq} or {-'egh} can be transitive, and a verb containing {-moH} can be intransitive, depending on if one of the other suffixes increases or decreases its valency, respectively. The rigid slot structure of Klingon cloaks the logical order of interpretation, but context and the verb prefixes usually help. - André 2016-07-28 16:41 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
what about the :
{vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself".
is it acceptable ?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to unite" v. "cause to unite each other"? The latter almost sounds like they unite without Kahless as the impetus for their union.
ter'eS
________________________________ From: André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?
It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency, making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix, increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash).
Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH} naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've formed the sentence the same way.
Schematically: S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH}) S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh}) S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq}) S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH})
S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural entities.
I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence.
- André
2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from paq'batlh.) Apparently, the rules governing -chuq—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the -moH tells us that the subject causes the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
{vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself".
is it acceptable ?
Absolutely (I believe). I'll try to explain why. The verb root {qIp} is bivalent. It can take two arguments: a subject and object. Subject {ghaH} Object {SoH} Verb form: {DuqIp} "he hits you" Adding {-'egh} reduces the verb's valency count by one, disallowing an object. Subject {ghaH} Object {SoH} ? none Verb form: {qIp'egh} "he hits himself" Adding {-moH} adds a new subject - the causer of the action - which pushes the old subject out of subject position and demotes it to the first available empty category. Since the object was deleted by {-'egh}, there is no object, meaning the object spot is now open to "catch" the old subject. Causer {jIH} ? new subject Old subject {ghaH} ? object Verb form: {vIqIp'eghmoH} "I make him hit himself" (Not that the brain goes through that process consciously, but it's a fair description of how Klingon causatives work.) Does that make sense? QeS 'utlh
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does ! thanks ! On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
{vIqIp'eghmoH} for "I caused him to hit himself".
is it acceptable ?
Absolutely (I believe). I'll try to explain why.
The verb root {qIp} is bivalent. It can take two arguments: a subject and object.
Subject {ghaH}
Object {SoH}
Verb form: {DuqIp} "he hits you"
Adding {-'egh} reduces the verb's valency count by one, disallowing an object.
Subject {ghaH}
Object {SoH} → none
Verb form: {qIp'egh} "he hits himself"
Adding {-moH} adds a new subject - the causer of the action - which pushes the old subject out of subject position and demotes it to the first available empty category. Since the object was deleted by {-'egh}, there is no object, meaning the object spot is now open to "catch" the old subject.
Causer {jIH} → new subject
Old subject {ghaH} → object
Verb form: {vIqIp'eghmoH} "I make him hit himself"
(Not that the brain goes through that process consciously, but it's a fair description of how Klingon causatives work.) Does that make sense?
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghItlhpu' ter'eS, jatlh:
Why not just {muvmoH}, then? What does {-chuq} add to it? "Cause to unite" v. "cause to unite each other"?
You're just relying too heavily on the English gloss there, that's all. {muv} means not "unite", but "join": it's {muvchuq} that means "unite" (literally, "join each other"). QeS 'utlh
I was going to say just what André said. SuStel's explanation is not in practice wrong, but I think it overcomplicates matters, and certainly I wouldn't analyse this as being a new exception. I too view it simply as a matter of valency count. Type 1 {-'egh} and {-chuq} decrease the verb's valency by one. Type 4 {-moH} increases it by one. The net result is that if the bare verb was bivalent (i.e. could take an object, valency 2), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH} can take an object: 2 (X) - 1 (-'egh) + 1 (-moH) = 2 (X-'eghmoH). Conversely, 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"? QeS 'utlh
On 7/28/2016 10:41 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
Conversely, 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"?
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. If you can't think of anything, then you can't add an object. It can't be "self," because the suffix *-'egh* already says that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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.
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? QeS 'utlh
On 7/28/2016 11:24 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
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.
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?
I believe I disagree. If I wanted to say /I cause the Klingon to please himself,/ that could be *tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH.* I am doing something. Something is being done to the Klingon. Subject and object. The *-'egh* tells me that the performer of *bel* (and not the subject, as TKD says) pleases himself; the *-moH* tells me that the subject of the sentence causes the action to happen. These suffixes cause only semantic changes. 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. 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. 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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I think the main "problem" (not really a problem) is that the rule presented in TKD referred specifically just to V+chuq and it's true for that one. Marc Okrand probably really didn't take into account that the verb syntax changes with the addition of {-moH}. So his original wording was supposed to explain just how V and V+chuq differ, to explain what {-chuq} does. So in that way, we could either say you interpreted the rule in TKD too rigidly, or it was formulated without thinking of other valency-changing options. Both can be true at the same time. No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone. Or no one has ever felt the need to use or question such a construction. It's pretty clear that the explanations of {-moH} and {-chuq} somehow clash, but nowhere was it explicitly stated that they couldn't be used together, and it doesn't seem logical to assume that they couldn't be used together either. But I must correct you: these suffixes explicitly do not only cause semantic change, they clearly do cause syntactic change. If you want to use these terms or ignore them as "rigamarole" is your choice. Other klingonists do find this terminology useful. Why not name things for what they are? Oversimplification and mixing up semantics and syntax doesn't really help. But yes, so as to not exclude anyone, these terms should be defined. So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax. A former intransitive verb becomes transitive, in other words: a verb with only one actant, like "sleep", becomes a verb with two actants, i.e. "put to sleep", "cause to sleep", "tranquilize". The semantics don't change as much as the syntax changes. The former subject becomes the new object (or causee), and a new argument is introduces as the new subject: the causer. Same with {-chuq}: what used to be subject and object now are merged and become the new subject. You can see that because their position is now after the verb, and the agreement prefixes agree with them in the way they agree with subjects of intransitive verbs like "sleep". The semantic change here is that the action is mutual, and is exchanged between the former subject and object. jIQong. = 1 argument (the sleeper), no object possible, intransitive - "I sleep." vIQongmoH. = 2 arguments (causer & causee, who is also the sleeper), transitive - "I make him sleep." jIQong'eghmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee), intransitive again - "I make myself sleep." vIlegh. = 2 arguments (seer & seee), transitive - "I see him." maleghchuq. = 1 argument (seer=see as a group), intransitive - "We see each other." vIleghchuqmoH. = 2 arguments (causer & causee=seer=see), transitive - "I make them see each other." maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other sleep." The last sentence is the thing I raised in my previous message, and I could imagine not everyone agrees that it's possible. Prior to today, would you have not accepted sentences like {vIleghchuqmoH} or {jIQong'eghmoH}? - André 2016-07-28 17:48 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/28/2016 11:24 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
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.
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?
I believe I disagree. If I wanted to say *I cause the Klingon to please himself,* that could be *tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH.* I am doing something. Something is being done to the Klingon. Subject and object. The *-'egh* tells me that the performer of *bel* (and not the subject, as TKD says) pleases himself; the *-moH* tells me that the subject of the sentence causes the action to happen.
These suffixes cause only semantic changes. 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. 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.
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.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/28/2016 12:34 PM, André Müller wrote:
I think the main "problem" (not really a problem) is that the rule presented in TKD referred specifically just to V+chuq and it's true for that one. Marc Okrand probably really didn't take into account that the verb syntax changes with the addition of {-moH}. So his original wording was supposed to explain just how V and V+chuq differ, to explain what {-chuq} does. So in that way, we could either say you interpreted the rule in TKD too rigidly, or it was formulated without thinking of other valency-changing options. Both can be true at the same time.
I completely believe that Okrand wasn't considering the effects of *-moH* on a verb with *-chuq* or *-'egh.* That doesn't change what the rule says, and the example sentence violates that rule. Until now we've never had any evidence to suggest that both rules for these suffixes weren't absolute. So saying the rule obviously doesn't take into account using a verb with *-moH* is no different from what I've been saying, which is that the example violates the stated rules. Reading "This suffix is used only with plural subjects... The prefix set indicating 'no object' is also used when this suffix is used" as requiring plural subjects and no-object prefixes is not a too-rigid interpretation. The implications are clear. The subject must be plural and a no-object prefix must be used. The example sentence violates one of these rules and implies a violation of the other (by having an object), which means that, if the example is to be considered grammatical, /the stated rules must be wrong./ "Wrong" includes "doesn't take into account using *-moH.*"
No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone.
Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one. No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable. Okrand's sentence goes AGAINST common wisdom on the list. The history of horror and anger on this list regarding everything *-moH* is a testament against that even being remotely possible.
So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax.
/Adding/ *-moH* to a sentence that doesn't have *-moH,* and then rearranging the nouns to refer to the same situation, /does/ change the syntax. Absolutely. I'm not talking about that. When constructing original sentences including *-moH**,* one does not start with an un*-moH*'d sentence and add *-moH* to it. The point is that the process of creating an original sentence with *-moH* is no different than creating an original sentence without *-moH*. You have a subject which is performing the main action, regardless of whether that subject is performing the "root" verb or not. You have an object which has the main action performed on it, regardless of whether that object is having the "root" verb performed on it or not. You put together OBJECT VERB SUBJECT and call it a day. Syntax. This is how Okrand seems to construct his sentences. Now, exactly what that verb MEANS is the realm of semantics. If it has *-moH* on it, it means the subject CAUSES the "root" verb to happen. If it has *-chuq* on it, it means whoever does perform the "root" verb (NOT necessarily the subject as TKD states), must be plural and does it to each other. These performers of the root verb may not even appear in the sentence! (*muvchuqmoH qeylIS*/Kahless causes [someone plural and unspecified] to join each other/; /Kahless causes joining up/) But using these suffixes does not mean the basic OVS sentence, which was constructed based on syntax, without reference to whether the subject was an agent or a causer, without reference to whether the object was an agent or a patient, has changed.
maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other sleep."
The last sentence is the thing I raised in my previous message, and I could imagine not everyone agrees that it's possible. Prior to today, would you have not accepted sentences like {vIleghchuqmoH} or {jIQong'eghmoH}?
I would not have accepted *vIleghchuqmoH*/I make them see each other/ because it violates the rules in TKD about the subject being plural and the verb prefix indicating no-object, but I would have accepted *jIQong'eghmoH*/I put myself to sleep/ because it violates no rules. I would have accepted *maleghchuqmoH* /we make each other see/ (not sleep!) for the same reason. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
2016-07-28 20:10 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 7/28/2016 12:34 PM, André Müller wrote:
I think the main "problem" (not really a problem) is that the rule presented in TKD referred specifically just to V+chuq and it's true for that one. Marc Okrand probably really didn't take into account that the verb syntax changes with the addition of {-moH}. So his original wording was supposed to explain just how V and V+chuq differ, to explain what {-chuq} does. So in that way, we could either say you interpreted the rule in TKD too rigidly, or it was formulated without thinking of other valency-changing options. Both can be true at the same time.
I completely believe that Okrand wasn't considering the effects of *-moH* on a verb with *-chuq* or *-'egh.* That doesn't change what the rule says, and the example sentence violates that rule. Until now we've never had any evidence to suggest that both rules for these suffixes weren't absolute. So saying the rule obviously doesn't take into account using a verb with *-moH* is no different from what I've been saying, which is that the example violates the stated rules.
Reading "This suffix is used only with plural subjects... The prefix set indicating 'no object' is also used when this suffix is used" as requiring plural subjects and no-object prefixes is not a too-rigid interpretation. The implications are clear. The subject must be plural and a no-object prefix must be used. The example sentence violates one of these rules and implies a violation of the other (by having an object), which means that, if the example is to be considered grammatical, *the stated rules must be wrong.* "Wrong" includes "doesn't take into account using *-moH.*"
Yes, I can agree with you that this is sort of the same thing. I would say the rule was ill-formulated, because it could lead to your interpretation. If Okrand were to write a new complete grammar, he would have to change this sentence, so it's more clear. No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was
clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone.
Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable.
Who tells them? You? ;) Anyone else? Well... might be, of course. But I disagree that it goes against common wisdom. I agree that {-moH} is difficult, but mostly when applied to transitive stems. That's still tricky. But if you know how to use both suffixes in question, assuming that their use together is ungrammatical is... quite a stretch. But you seem to disagree. Fine. Now you know it's possible. The sentence wasn't a surprise for me when I added it to my own database. In fact, I do believe that if you look closer at other wordings in TKD, with respect to things like "subject", "object", etc., then you will probably find more such "exceptions" that others wouldn't see as such. These things happen in real-life grammatical descriptions, too, of course.
Okrand's sentence goes AGAINST common wisdom on the list. The history of horror and anger on this list regarding everything *-moH* is a testament against that even being remotely possible.
So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax.
*Adding* *-moH* to a sentence that doesn't have *-moH,* and then rearranging the nouns to refer to the same situation, *does* change the syntax. Absolutely. I'm not talking about that. When constructing original sentences including *-moH**,* one does not start with an un*-moH*'d sentence and add *-moH* to it.
The point is that the process of creating an original sentence with *-moH* is no different than creating an original sentence without *-moH*. You have a subject which is performing the main action, regardless of whether that subject is performing the "root" verb or not. You have an object which has the main action performed on it, regardless of whether that object is having the "root" verb performed on it or not. You put together OBJECT VERB SUBJECT and call it a day. Syntax. This is how Okrand seems to construct his sentences.
Yes, absolutely right. In your head, while making a sentence with {-moH}, being a fluent or conversational speaker, you don't need to reorder the elements in your head consciously. So you don't consciously change the syntax. In the grammar of Klingon, the suffix does, though (and Noam Chomsky would argue, that subconsciously you do to, but let's not get into that, I don't support his theories on language). So the syntactical change happens inside the language, in the grammar, not really consciously in our heads. And I have no doubt that Marc also doesn't think about it, usually, when writing sentences. Except probably in the sentence about Worf's sash (which works very different from typical "natural" causative constructions and this was probably done deliberately).
Now, exactly what that verb MEANS is the realm of semantics. If it has *-moH* on it, it means the subject CAUSES the "root" verb to happen. If it has *-chuq* on it, it means whoever does perform the "root" verb (NOT necessarily the subject as TKD states), must be plural and does it to each other. These performers of the root verb may not even appear in the sentence! (*muvchuqmoH qeylIS** Kahless causes [someone plural and unspecified] to join each other*; *Kahless causes joining up*) But using these suffixes does not mean the basic OVS sentence, which was constructed based on syntax, without reference to whether the subject was an agent or a causer, without reference to whether the object was an agent or a patient, has changed.
Actually this is something where semantics and syntax overlap. The performer (agent) of the root verb... the underlying subject of the root verb... that affects both syntax and semantics equally. But what the "basic sentence" is here, is a matter of interpretation, of course. As seen from the view point of a speaker of Klingon, you could argue that {muvchuqmoH} is already the basic element, retrieved from the speakers mind, and then applied in the same way as if it were a simple word like {Sop} (where the direct object isn't necessary either). That's how speakers form sentences, it's not how you would describe a language to work, though. If you explain the sentence to a learner, or to someone who doesn't know anything about Klingon, you'd first explain the meaning of {muv}, then what {-chuq} does to the verb, and then what {-moH} does. And a beginner in Klingon will perhaps do these changes in his head... "join... uhm... each other... uhm... make... makes some people join each other". But yeah, we were speaking about 2 different levels where "syntactic change" is happening - in the structure of the language, the grammar, the deep stuff... or in the head of a fluent speaker.
maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other sleep."
The last sentence is the thing I raised in my previous message, and I could imagine not everyone agrees that it's possible. Prior to today, would you have not accepted sentences like {vIleghchuqmoH} or {jIQong'eghmoH}?
I would not have accepted *vIleghchuqmoH** I make them see each other* because it violates the rules in TKD about the subject being plural and the verb prefix indicating no-object, but I would have accepted *jIQong'eghmoH** I put myself to sleep* because it violates no rules. I would have accepted *maleghchuqmoH* *we make each other see* (not sleep!) for the same reason.
It would be interesting to see how other speakers would have judged it. Not for the sake of being right or wrong in my assumption, but just to see how common the assumption or literal interpretation is. I think most people would interpret "subject" in the rule as meaning "subject of the root verb", not "subject of the entire verb complex after applying all possible suffixes". Would also be interesting (at least for me) to check non-canon corpora to see if it actually has been used before by people on the list, but simply no one ever noticed anything weird about it (like I didn't). Now I wonder how to say "We make each other see each other." ;) - André
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ja' André Müller:
No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone.
ja' SuStel:
Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable.
ja' André:
Who tells them? You? ;)
No, not him. In fact, SuStel regularly reminds people that they *should* use {-'eghmoH} when putting an imperative prefix on a verb expressing a state or quality. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 7/28/2016 3:10 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
ja' André Müller:
No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone. ja' SuStel: Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable. ja' André: Who tells them? You? ;) No, not him. In fact, SuStel regularly reminds people that they *should* use {-'eghmoH} when putting an imperative prefix on a verb expressing a state or quality.
Yes, let's limit this to *-chuq,* which has different rules than *-'egh.* Clearly I can't produce a survey of the list's history, looking for objections to *-chuq* and *-moH* together, but I would point out that the original poster was confused at seeing *muvchuqmoH* take an object despite the rules in TKD. He could only cite a /feeling/ that it was wrong. Where did this feeling come from? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:20 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Clearly I can't produce a survey of the list's history, looking for objections to -chuq and -moH together, but I would point out that the original poster was confused at seeing muvchuqmoH take an object despite the rules in TKD. He could only cite a feeling that it was wrong. Where did this feeling come from?
He didn't say he had a feeling that it was wrong. He said he couldn't make himself feel the meaning of {-chuq} and {-moH} combined along with a subject. I would suggest that this comes from reading the rules as prescriptive and absolute, and not having had enough practice using (and thinking in) it yet. Speaking the language conversationally for long enough to have an internalized "sense" for how things work gives slightly different rules in practice, and ends up with prioritizing rules so that some of TKD's statements of "always" and "never" have regular exceptions. Here, the higher-priority "rule" involves the way {-moH} makes what would have been the verb's subject into its object. Instead of {muvchuq} being what things do, {muvchuqmoH} is what is done to them. In the first example, the subjects join each other. In the second, something else makes the objects join each other. It's just like {bel} and {belmoH}, or {Qong} and {QongmoH}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
If I wanted to say I cause the Klingon to please himself, that could be tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH.
I'm unable to parse that in a way that makes sense. It seems to be missing something, but I can't quite figure out what. The more I look at it, the less I understand it.
I am doing something. Something is being done to the Klingon. Subject and object. The -'egh tells me that the performer of bel (and not the subject, as TKD says) pleases himself; the -moH tells me that the subject of the sentence causes the action to happen.
{bel} is "be pleased", so {bel'egh} is weird. It would have to be {bel'eghmoH} to become "make himself pleased" or "please himself"...but then there's no way to add another subject causing the action without using an additional verb. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 7/28/2016 3:01 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
If I wanted to say I cause the Klingon to please himself, that could be tlhIngan vIbel'eghmoH jIH. I'm unable to parse that in a way that makes sense. It seems to be missing something, but I can't quite figure out what. The more I look at it, the less I understand it.
I am doing something. Something is being done to the Klingon. Subject and object. The -'egh tells me that the performer of bel (and not the subject, as TKD says) pleases himself; the -moH tells me that the subject of the sentence causes the action to happen. {bel} is "be pleased", so {bel'egh} is weird. It would have to be {bel'eghmoH} to become "make himself pleased" or "please himself"...but then there's no way to add another subject causing the action without using an additional verb.
You're right, that example doesn't work. I think I was slipping into thinking *bel* was /please./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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
"This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is translated /each other/ or /one another./ The prefix set indicating 'no object' is also used when this suffix is used." Exception. The combination of *-chuq* and *-moH* have never been used prior to /paq'batlh/, and no one on this list has ever pointed it out before mayqel. New. As far as valency and transitivity go, you can analyze Klingon sentences like that, but I don't think Okrand thinks of them that way, and they don't help predict unusual grammar. Those are semantic tools; Okrand is obeying syntax and letting the semantics take care of themselves. The subject *qeylIS* is performing an action; the direct object *Qo'noS tuqmey* is having something done to it. Syntax, without regard to meaning. That the houses are being made to join each other is irrelevant to the placement of the subject and object. What's new and exceptional is the verb's rule-breaking situation. On 7/28/2016 10:29 AM, André Müller wrote:
It's neither an exception nor something new. I don't think (m)any of us would be surprised about this sentence. While {-chuq} reduces the valency, making a transitive verb intransitive, {-moH}, being a causative suffix, increases the valency by adding another argument. Intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs actually remain transitive, but another oblique argument is added (see the famous example with Worf's sash).
Now, any verb with {-chuq} is by definition intransitive, so adding {-moH} naturally makes it transitive again, turning the meaning into something like "S makes O verb each other". I don't recall if I have ever used these two suffixes together, but their use seems quite natural to me and I would've formed the sentence the same way.
Schematically: S verbs. (intransitive, e.g. {'IH}) S verbs O. (transitive, e.g. {legh}) S&S verb each other. (reciprocal, e.g. {leghchuq}) S makes O&O verb each other. (reciprocal+causative, e.g. {leghchuqmoH})
S&S and O&O I just use to show that they must in some way refer to plural entities.
I don't quite see what's new about it. But perhaps I just always assumed that it works this way and am thus not surprised about this sentence.
- André
2016-07-28 15:18 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>>:
On 7/28/2016 2:45 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
read this :
Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS kahless united the tribes of kronos
..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?
according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq} can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.
now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the {muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 28 July 2016 at 16:48, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The combination of -chuq and -moH have never been used prior to paq'batlh, and no one on this list has ever pointed it out before mayqel.
Actually, QeS pointed this out in a message on this mailing list dated Feb. 9, 2012. You even replied to him at the time: http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html -- De'vID
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
André Müller -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel -
Terrence Donnelly