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

[Gaerfindel]

On 2/8/2012 6:30 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:33 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name 
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> The problem with thematic relations and theta roles is that they're 
> subjective....
>
>     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.
>
> 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.
How about this?

{HIp vItuQ} - I wear the uniform.
{HIp vItuQ jIH} - *I* wear the uniform.  (Not someone else.)
{HIp vItuQmoH} - I dress (someone) in a uniform.
{HIp vItuQeghmoH} - I dress myself in a uniform.
{HIqraj qatuQmoH} - You dress me in your uniform.  (Prefix trick.)
{HIqwIj vItuQHa'moH} - I undress (from) my uniform.
{puqloDwI'vaD DuSaQ HIqDaj vItuQHa'moH} - I undress my son from his 
school uniform.
{HIqvam mutuQmoH 'IpwI'} - My oath causes me to wear this uniform. <== 
Note the difference, here!

~quljIb





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120208/3f21610a/attachment.html>