The paq'batlh contains the sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} (p.179) implying that we can use {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of the main verb (which has become the object of the verb with {-moH}). Do we have other evidence of the same? How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction? What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way? And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way? Jeremy
On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
The paq'batlh contains the sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} (p.179) implying that we can use {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of the main verb (which has become the object of the verb with {-moH}). Do we have other evidence of the same?
Hmm. The meaning made enough sense that I didn’t question the grammar until you pointed it out, but it is indeed an interesting construction. I too am curious if other similar examples exist.
How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the pattern with muvchuqmoH.
What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like it should work in the example above too.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH. I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
Jeremy _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 06:14 Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net wrote:
On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the pattern with muvchuqmoH.
Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh} are lexicalised, so it's instructive to consider what {tuQ'eghmoH} and {tatlh'eghmoH} would mean. {puqvaD Sut tuQ'eghmoH vav} {pa'Daq puq tatlh'eghmoH SoS} What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively
refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
{muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch} appears in the paq'batlh.
Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb
of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like it should work in the example above too.
{yItaD'eghmoH} is in KGT for "Freeze yourself" (literally, as in "cause yourself to be frozen"), as opposed to {yItaD} which idiomatically means "cease moving!" However, {yItamchoH} (from TKD) is not {yItam'eghchoHmoH}, which is probably for the better. (Marc Okrand has also written {yIpIv} on a get-well card, though I don't know if he was channeling Maltz when he did so. The KLI also has {yIDoghQo'} as an example on its website rather than {yIDogh'eghmoHQo'}, but of course that's not a canon example.) The sentence in KGT describing the {-'eghmoH} rule for imperatives with verbs of quality says it applies "generally", though it seems there are exceptions.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH. I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
Are there actually two possibilities? What's an example of an ambiguous sentence? -- De'vID
On Dec 28, 2018, at 19:59, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Are there actually two possibilities? What's an example of an ambiguous sentence?
I meant the interpretation of the combination of -chuqmoH being a transitive “A causes plural B do something to each other” like in {Qo'noS tuq muvchuqmoH qeylIS} or a non transitive “plural A make each other something” like in the {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'} example. It’s not even a case of one of those verbs being stative and the other not: they’re both transitive verbs. In one case muvchuq tuq means the tuq are muving each other and that is the thing that qeylIS is moHing, and in the other, SuvwI' rIQmoH SuvwI' is what the warriors are chuqing each other with. I didn’t mean to say that a single sentence could be interpreted both ways, but it probably isn’t impossible for that to happen if you get weird enough.
jatlh De'vID: Are there actually two possibilities? What's an example of an ambiguous sentence? How about... {jaghpu' HoHchuqmoH 'avwI'pu'}? Is that, "The guards make each other kill the prisoners."? Or, "The guards make the prisoners kill each other."? Jeremy
On 12/28/2018 10:59 PM, De'vID wrote:
Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh} are lexicalised,
How do we know that *tuQmoH* is lexicalized? Okrand's explanation of /verb+suffix/ in the word lists is that they're there to aid in looking up words, not that they're lexicalized. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 17:51 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name wrote:
On 12/28/2018 10:59 PM, De'vID wrote:
Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh} are lexicalised,
How do we know that *tuQmoH* is lexicalized?
I guess we don't know for certain, and it's confusing because it's glossed in TKD as "put on (clothes)", and in HolQeD 2.4, {tuQmoHHa'} (not {tuQHa'moH}) is used with the meaning "take off (clothes)". -- De'vID
On 12/29/2018 10:02 AM, De'vID wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 17:51 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/28/2018 10:59 PM, De'vID wrote:
Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh} are lexicalised,
How do we know that *tuQmoH* is lexicalized?
I guess we don't know for certain, and it's confusing because it's glossed in TKD as "put on (clothes)", and in HolQeD 2.4, {tuQmoHHa'} (not {tuQHa'moH}) is used with the meaning "take off (clothes)".
I think the gloss /put on (clothes)/ is misleading as to the grammar of *tuQmoH. *I believe *tuQ* works just like any other verb. It's just that the English terminology doesn't use the same grammar as the Klingon that makes it confusing. *tuQ* /wear (clothes) /*tuQmoH*/put on (clothes) /*tuQHa'moH*/undress, take off (clothes) / *HIp vItuQ* /I wear the uniform /*puq vItuQmoH*/I dress the child; I cause the child to wear (something unspecified) /*HIp vItuQmoH* /I dress someone unspecified in the uniform; I put the uniform on (someone unspecified) /*puqvaD HIp vItuQmoH*/I dress the child in the uniform; I cause the child to wear the uniform/ *jItuQHa'moH* /I undress someone unspecified; I cause someone unspecified to un-wear. /*puq vItuQHa'moH* /I undress the child; I cause the child to un-wear (something unspecified) /*HIp vItuQHa'moH*/I take the uniform off (of someone unspecified); I cause someone unspecified to un-wear the uniform /*puqvaD HIp vItuQHa'moH*/I remove the uniform from the child; I cause the child to un-wear the uniform/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:44 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -chuqmoH & -'eghmoH On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com<mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote: How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the pattern with muvchuqmoH.
In which case it would mean, "The mother makes the child clean themself." What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like it should work in the example above too.
Good point. That is strong evidence for this pattern. And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH. I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
It's the {-moH} itself that seems to be causing the dual possibilities. When we use a {-moH} on a verb that does not have an object, the subject of that verb slides into the object position. But when we use a {-moH} on a verb that does have an object, the object of that verb stays the object and the subject of that verb apparently gets marked with {-vaD}. Thus most verbs with {-moH} have at least the potential of two objects. But since the type 1 suffix does not appear as an actual object, the question is which one of the objects is the type 1 suffix trying to fulfill? Jeremy
On Dec 28, 2018, at 9:20 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org>> on behalf of Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net <mailto:daniel@dadap.net>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:44 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -chuqmoH & -'eghmoH
On Dec 28, 2018, at 17:48, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com <mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the pattern with muvchuqmoH.
In which case it would mean, "The mother makes the child clean themself."
Right, I understood the intended meaning, but the problem is that -chuq and -‘egh don’t work quite the same, so I’m not sure the same pattern is valid here, assuming that the {-chuqmoH} one was to begin with. {*Say'egh puq} doesn’t make sense, because one cannot be clean one’s self. It has to be {Say'eghmoH puq}. But once you have {Say’eghmoH puq}, how does the {SoS} {-moH} that again? Building on your example of guards and prisoners (I think you meant {qama’} rather than {jagh}): {qama’ HoH’eghmoH avwI’} A guard made a prisoner kill him/herself or A guard made him/herself kill a prisoner This form of {B wot-‘eghmoH A} makes some kind of sense with a transitive verb like {HoH}, but I think it’s a bit weird with a stative verb like {Say’}. One way this ambiguity can be broken is when {-chuq} is used, and one or the other of the potential verb subjects (including the one that appears in the object position) is singular, since {-chuq} requires a plural subject. Hence {Qo’noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} isn’t ambiguous in the way {qama’pu’ HoHchuqmoH ‘avwI’pu’} is, since there’s only one {qeylIS}, and if the meaning were that he and the houses of Kronos made each other unite, it should have been {muvchuqmoH Qo’noS tuqmey qeylIS je}. Similarly, I think the following two sentences each only have one reading: {peng Qaw'chuqmoH negh} the soldiers caused each other to destroy the torpedo {cha Qaw'chuqmoH mang} a soldier caused the torpedoes to destroy each other I used irregular plurals because I think the subject of a verb with {-chuq} needs to be semantically plural, and not grammatically plural, and to avoid interpretations where a non-explicitly marked plural was actually plural.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way?
That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH. I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
It's the {-moH} itself that seems to be causing the dual possibilities. When we use a {-moH} on a verb that does not have an object, the subject of that verb slides into the object position. But when we use a {-moH} on a verb that does have an object, the object of that verb stays the object and the subject of that verb apparently gets marked with {-vaD}. Thus most verbs with {-moH} have at least the potential of two objects. But since the type 1 suffix does not appear as an actual object, the question is which one of the objects is the type 1 suffix trying to fulfill?
jIQochbe’. What I meant by the possibilities being a consequence is that since the combined suffixes modify the meaning of the verb together, and always occur in the same order, it isn’t immediately clear what the relationship is between the modifications made by each suffix individually. I don’t think it’s limited to the combination of type 1 and type 4: does {jIleghchoHlaH} mean “I am able to begin seeing” or “I begin to be able to see”?
Jeremy _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
On 12/28/2018 8:48 PM, David Holt wrote:
The paq'batlh contains the sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} (p.179) implying that we can use {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of the main verb (which has become the object of the verb with {-moH}). Do we have other evidence of the same?
I don't think that implication is inevitable. The object of the sentence is not "the subject of the main verb." The subject is the subject, and the subject in this case is the causer. We've seen other sentences where adding a *-moH* doesn't change the role of the object at all. There are other ways to interpret this. I think that Klingons don't see their sentences quite as mechanically as you're making them. I believe the scope of *-moH* is variable. Sometimes it applies directly to the verb, and sometimes it applies to the verb plus its object-affecting suffixes. In this case *-moH* means Kahless is causing the houses of Kronos to *muvchuq, *not just *muv.* I think it's significant that /The Klingon Dictionary/ doesn't usually distinguish between direct and indirect object, and that verb prefixes can sometimes agree with indirect instead of direct objects. I think Klingons see the position before the verb as the "object" position, not necessarily the direct object position. Sometimes indirect objects belong there. Sometimes they don't. Don't try to "subject of the main verb" this sort of thing. I don't think that's how *-moH* works. The subject remains the subject, whether it's causing something or not. It's just that the exact meaning of the object is fluid. It might be the thing performing the bare verb, or it might be the thing the bare verb is acting upon. Which one it is must be inferred by the listener. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 12/29/2018 9:48 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
What does "lexicalized" mean ?
In this context it means it's considered a word distinct from its component parts. For instance, the word *ghojmoH* is not a lexicalized form, because it is recognized to be just *ghoj* with *-moH* applied to it, as one does. But the word *vutpa'* is a lexicalized form, because although it is clearly derived from *vut* and *pa',* it's not just a simple application of pushing the two together; it's a distinct word. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Daniel Dadap -
David Holt -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel