Making someone do something to someone/something else
I have been wondering about how to perfectly convey sentences where there seems to be 2 subjects, such as "She made you wait for us" and just came up with an idea that I wanted to discuss with you: using < ... ’e’ qaSmoH > For instance: juloS ’e’ qaSmoH
Literally: She caused it to happen that you waited for us
Or, for the example from last month (they made the dog enter the cage: DogvaD mo’ lu’elmoH): mo’ ’el dog ’e’ luqaSmoH When you think about it, in "She made you wait for us", the subject is "she" but the object is not "you", it is the action/event "you wait for us" taken as a whole, thus <... ’e’ qaSmoH > seems a logical way to phrase it. What do you think ? Has it maybe been discussed already ? Best, Aurélie
On 15 September 2017 at 11:18, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been wondering about how to perfectly convey sentences where there seems to be 2 subjects, such as "She made you wait for us" and just came up with an idea that I wanted to discuss with you: using < ... ’e’ qaSmoH >
If you need the specific idea of someone forcing someone to do something, consider {raD}. DuraDmo' juloS. Or you can just use {-moH} on the verb. SoHvaD nuloSmoH. There's usually no reason to use a generic verb like {qaS} (except when you really mean when something is happening).
For instance: juloS ’e’ qaSmoH
Literally: She caused it to happen that you waited for us
Or, for the example from last month (they made the dog enter the cage: DogvaD mo’ lu’elmoH): mo’ ’el dog ’e’ luqaSmoH
When you think about it, in "She made you wait for us", the subject is "she" but the object is not "you", it is the action/event "you wait for us" taken as a whole, thus <... ’e’ qaSmoH > seems a logical way to phrase it.
What do you think ? Has it maybe been discussed already ?
What's logical is not necessarily what sounds natural in a language. -- De'vID
On 9/15/2017 5:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
I have been wondering about how to perfectly convey sentences where there seems to be 2 subjects, such as "She made you wait for us" and just came up with an idea that I wanted to discuss with you: using < ... ’e’ qaSmoH >
For instance: juloS ’e’ qaSmoH
Literally: She caused it to happen that you waited for us
Or, for the example from last month (they made the dog enter the cage: DogvaD mo’ lu’elmoH): mo’ ’el dog ’e’ luqaSmoH
When you think about it, in "She made you wait for us", the subject is "she" but the object is not "you", it is the action/event "you wait for us" taken as a whole, thus <... ’e’ qaSmoH > seems a logical way to phrase it.
What do you think ? Has it maybe been discussed already ?
Sure, people have been using *'e' qaSmoH* forever. It was one of the primary ways of getting around the "ditransitive" issue before we had examples and confirmation. You're reconstructing it from the other direction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you both De'vID and SuStel for your replies, and apologies for taking a while to get back to you. So as I understand the most correct way in those cases can be summarized as below: < Subject 1> causes <Subject 2> to <verb> <direct object> becomes < Subject 2>-vaD <direct object> <verb>-moH < Subject 1> If there is an indirect object as well as a direct object, is there already an established way to say it? For example: The Captain made the prisoner give the knife to the officer Do we just get 2 nouns with -vaD suffix ? yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD or is it safer to work around the problem as below: qama’ raDmo’ HoD, yaSvaD taj nob qama’ 2017-09-15 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 9/15/2017 5:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
I have been wondering about how to perfectly convey sentences where there seems to be 2 subjects, such as "She made you wait for us" and just came up with an idea that I wanted to discuss with you: using < ... ’e’ qaSmoH >
For instance: juloS ’e’ qaSmoH
Literally: She caused it to happen that you waited for us
Or, for the example from last month (they made the dog enter the cage: DogvaD mo’ lu’elmoH): mo’ ’el dog ’e’ luqaSmoH
When you think about it, in "She made you wait for us", the subject is "she" but the object is not "you", it is the action/event "you wait for us" taken as a whole, thus <... ’e’ qaSmoH > seems a logical way to phrase it.
What do you think ? Has it maybe been discussed already ?
Sure, people have been using *'e' qaSmoH* forever. It was one of the primary ways of getting around the "ditransitive" issue before we had examples and confirmation. You're reconstructing it from the other direction.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Monday, 18 September 2017 09:47:54 BST Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
The Captain made the prisoner give the knife to the officer
I see this example as a use for the verb {raD} - force/compel, with a purpose clause. Unless I have misunderstood something, maybe something like this works: {yaSvaD taj nobmeH qama', qama' raD HoD.}
On 9/18/2017 4:47 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
So as I understand the most correct way in those cases can be summarized as below:
< Subject 1> causes <Subject 2> to <verb> <direct object> becomes < Subject 2>-vaD <direct object> <verb>-moH < Subject 1>
Don't say Subject 1 and Subject 2. You'll just drive yourself crazy. There is only one subject, and it is the word at the end. Semantics is much more important than syntax here. Say something like this instead: causer, causee, and patient (thing acted upon). <causer> causes <causee> to <verb> <patient> <causee>vaD <patient> <verb>moH <causer> -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Aurelie Demonchaux:
yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD
If I saw this sentence without knowing the intented meaning, chances are I would understand, that the {yaSvaD} and {qama'vaD} are nouns in apposition. So, I would eventually understand, that "the captain gave the knife for the officer and the prisoner". qunnoq On Sep 18, 2017 16:31, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/18/2017 4:47 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
So as I understand the most correct way in those cases can be summarized as below:
< Subject 1> causes <Subject 2> to <verb> <direct object> becomes < Subject 2>-vaD <direct object> <verb>-moH < Subject 1>
Don't say Subject 1 and Subject 2. You'll just drive yourself crazy. There is only one subject, and it is the word at the end. Semantics is much more important than syntax here. Say something like this instead: causer, causee, and patient (thing acted upon).
<causer> causes <causee> to <verb> <patient> <causee>vaD <patient> <verb>moH <causer>
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/18/2017 11:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Aurelie Demonchaux:
yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD
If I saw this sentence without knowing the intented meaning, chances are I would understand, that the {yaSvaD} and {qama'vaD} are nouns in apposition.
So, I would eventually understand, that "the captain gave the knife for the officer and the prisoner".
I agree that apposition might be a strong interpretation, but the translation would be this: /the captain makes the officer, the prisoner, give the knife./ Apposition means the two noun phrases are equated with each other. They are not conjoined with an /and./ Here, with apposition, the officer is a prisoner. If the captain made two separate people, an officer and a prisoner, give knives, the sentence would be *yaSvaD qama'vaD je taj nobmoH HoD.* By the way, watch out with your translation. The captain doesn't give the knife to an officer or a prisoner, he makes them give knives to someone unspecified or general. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Apposition means the two noun phrases are equated with each other. They are not conjoined with an and. Here, with apposition, the officer is a prisoner.
oh, you're right. I didn't notice the absence of a {je}. SuStel:
By the way, watch out with your translation. The captain doesn't give the knife to an officer or a prisoner, he makes them give knives to someone unspecified or general.
You're right again; I didn't take into account the presence of {-moH} on the {nob}. qunnoq On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:35 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/18/2017 11:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Aurelie Demonchaux:
yaSvaD qama'vaD taj nobmoH HoD
If I saw this sentence without knowing the intented meaning, chances are I would understand, that the {yaSvaD} and {qama'vaD} are nouns in apposition.
So, I would eventually understand, that "the captain gave the knife for the officer and the prisoner".
I agree that apposition might be a strong interpretation, but the translation would be this: the captain makes the officer, the prisoner, give the knife. Apposition means the two noun phrases are equated with each other. They are not conjoined with an and. Here, with apposition, the officer is a prisoner.
If the captain made two separate people, an officer and a prisoner, give knives, the sentence would be yaSvaD qama'vaD je taj nobmoH HoD.
By the way, watch out with your translation. The captain doesn't give the knife to an officer or a prisoner, he makes them give knives to someone unspecified or general.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
Aurélie Demonchaux -
De'vID -
Jeremy Silver -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel