[Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again

Brent Kesler brent.of.all.people at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 15:30:55 PST 2012


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:33 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:

>
> I am more and more convinced that {-moH} indicates a change in semantic
> roles, not syntactic roles, and that your above conjecture is correct. The
> subject changes role from agent or experiencer or whatever it is to cause.
> The object is NOT affected by the semantic change, but is still
> syntactically the thing to which the action as a whole is done.
>
> I will use explicit pronouns below and use the thematic relations
> described in Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Thematic_relations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relations>
> >
>

The problem with thematic relations and theta roles is that they're
subjective. It's hard for two people to look at the same sentence and come
up with the same thematic description. For example, in the sentence "Mary
is sad", we can both agree that Mary is the experiencer of the verb-qoq 'to
be sad'. The sentence "Mary cries" is problematic. Is Mary the agent of
crying? Does that imply will on Mary's part? If Mary cannot choose to cry
or stop crying, would it be better to describe her as the experiencer? If
she forces herself to cry, is she the agent? The cause? How are we supposed
to figure all that out from just the simple sentence "Mary cries"? Even the
Wikipedia article point out these problems:

-- quote --
There are no clear boundaries between these relations. For example, in "the
hammer broke the window", some linguists treat hammer as an agent, some
others as instrument, while some others treat it as a special role
different from these.
-- end quote --

That's why it's better to rely on syntax. We can disagree on on the
thematic relations and theta roles in a sentence, but the syntactic
position is clear. "Mary" is the subject of "cries", regardless of whether
she is agent, experiencer, or cause.



> HIp vItuQ jIH
> I wear a uniform (habitually or occasionally, not continuous or perfective)
> HIp = theme
> jIH = experiencer
>

Why is {jIH} the experiencer? Why not agent? I assume it's an act of will
to wear a uniform.



> The only difference is that we've added -moH to indicate that I don't just
> wear a uniform; I CAUSE this action of wearing. The semantic role of the
> object does not change just because I have indicated that the subject is
> the cause and not necessarily the experiencer.
>

I think the only reason this argument works is that you've chosen to think
of {jIH} as an experiencer rather than an agent. You could just as easily
interpret {jIH} as an agent in the first sentence, but then that would
overlap with cause, making {-moH} redundant and unproductive--which is why
thematic roles are so problematic.


Notice that these meanings are all habitual or occasional—they don't refer
> to a concrete act of wearing a uniform. If we do that, the semantic role of
> HIp changes...
>
> HIp vItuQta' jIH
> I wore the uniform
> HIp = patient
> jIH = experiencer
>

Why does the semantic role of {HIp} change when you add {-ta'}? Why is
{HIp} a patient in this sentence, but a theme in {HIp vItuQ}? Why can't
{HIp} be a patient in the first sentence and a theme in this one?



> What this says is that it doesn't matter what roles other nouns play in
> the sentence; they don't change. Only the subject changes from whatever its
> role was to become a CAUSE.
>
> Does this also apply to -moH on verbs of quality?
>
> jIQeHtaH jIH
> I am angry
> jIH = experiencer
>
> jIQeHmoHtaH jIH
> I cause (someone unspecified) to be angry
> jIH = cause
> There is no longer a noun acting in the experiencer role, so we don't know
> who is angry. Notice that the continuous -taH applies to the anger, not the
> causing.
>
> yaS vIQeHmoHtaH jIH
> I cause the officer to be angry
> yaS = experiencer
> jIH = cause
>
> It does apply to verbs of quality, because there is ample space to add an
> object. It's an object not because it's the object of my causing, but
> because it's an object of the action as a whole.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is exactly what's going on with -moH, and that this
> is what Okrand had in mind when he created it. -moH doesn't flip-flop
> subject to object; it ONLY changes the semantic role of the subject to
> CAUSE. Everything else in the sentence is interpreted exactly as before.
>



> quHDaj qaw 'oH
> It (experiencer) remembers his heritage (theme)
>

The sentence that started this debate so long ago was {wo'rIvvaD quHDaj
qawmoH Ha'quj} "The sash reminds Worf of his heritage". So what you're
saying here is that the sash remembers his heritage? That the sash
experiences the memory itself?


quHDaj qawmoH 'oH
> It (cause) causes (an unspecified experiencer) to remember his heritage
> (theme)
>
> ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH 'oH
> It (cause) causes to remember his heritage (theme); he (beneficiary) is
> the beneficiary
> So this really does mean "it causes him to remember his heritage." It just
> doesn't mean it in a word-for-word matchup with the English version.


The problem I have with this interpretation is that {wo'rIvvaD quHDaj
qawmoH Ha'quj} implies {quHDaj qaw wo'rIv}, not {quHDaj qaw Ha'quj}.

At the start of your post, you argued that "The object is NOT affected by
the semantic change, but is still syntactically the thing to which the
action as a whole is done." You break that rule with {yaS vIQeHmoH}. Why
does {QeH} -- which does not take an object -- suddenly gain one when
{-moH} is added? If {QeH} can take an object, what is its semantic role?
Why does the hypothetical object of {QeH} change thematic roles when you
add {-moH}, but {tuQ} and {qaw} do not?

Semantic roles are subjective and unpredictable, so they make a poor guide
for the use of verb suffixes. A syntactic rule is generalizable and
objective. The rule for {-moH} is:

   New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes a non-core
argument, and the original O remains the O.

Demonstration:
1. quHDaj (O) qaw wo'rIv (A).
2. wo'rIvvaD (original A) quHDaj (O) qawmoH Ha'quj (new A).


I have to confess, I don't know what to make of {tuQmoH}. It doesn't seem
to fit the syntactic rule, but it doesn't fit the proposed semantic rule
either (in so far as that rule is subjective). I think it's a victim of
semantic drift, like {lo'laH}.

bI'reng.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120208/ac450355/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tlhingan-hol mailing list