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

[David Trimboli]

On 2/8/2012 6:30 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:
>
> 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"?

As I showed, this difference is not important. It doesn't matter what 
theta role the nouns take in the sentence—when adding -moH, the subject 
becomes the cause and the other nouns remain exactly the same.

>     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.

It's an act of will to PUT ON a uniform, but the lack of type 7 verb 
suffix indicates that the wearing is not a continuous or discrete act, 
so it is not describing a single instance of wearing. It might be used 
in senses like "I am proud to wear the uniform" (if Klingons 
metaphorically link their uniforms with their service) or "I wear my 
uniform every day" (but not meaning "I put on my uniform every day). 
Simply finding yourself with a uniform surrounding your body makes you 
an experiencer, not an agent.

>     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.

It has nothing to do with the subject's prior theta role. We can use a 
sentence with an agent if you like, and the result is the same:

QIn lI'pu' QumpIn
The communications officer transmitted the message.
QIn = patient
QumpIn = agent

QIn lI'moHpu' QumpIn
The communications officer caused (an unspecified agent) to transmit the 
message.
QIn = patient
QumpIn = cause

jaghla'vaD QIn lI'moHpu' QumpIn
The communications officer caused (an unspecified agent) to transmit the 
message to the enemy commander.
jaghla'vaD = beneficiary
QIn = patient
QumpIn = cause

Whoever or whatever is the cause is not necessarily the party performing 
the action; they are only causing a party to perform the action.

>     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?

Explained above. Lack of perfective in the first set means the sentences 
do not refer to a single, completed event.

>     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?

No, I'm just putting together a sentence to show how -moH works. All of 
these sentences aren't meant to refer to the same situation or be 
equally true. In fact, NONE of the pairs that have and lack -moH refer 
to the same situation. That's the point: without -moH, the subject 
performs the action; with -moH, the subject causes someone unspecified 
to perform the action. Except in cases where the subject causes himself 
to do something, these are different entities, and hence, different 
situations.

> 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?

Any pre-existing object that appears in a sentence both with and without 
-moH will have the same semantic role. {QeH} without {-moH} does not 
take an object because its meaning does not include an object, but the 
meaning of {QeHmoH} does. No rule forbids us from putting objects on 
verbs of quality, except the rule of "that makes no sense."

> 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}.

{tuQmoH} works, too.

Sut vItuQ jIH
I wear clothes (i.e., I'm not in the habit of walking around naked)
Sut = theme or patient (exactly which is not important)
jIH = experiencer or agent (exactly which is not important)

Sut vItuQmoH jIH
I cause someone unspecified to wear clothes (i.e., I put clothes on 
someone, I am not in the habit of letting them walk around naked)
Sut = theme or patient (exactly which is not important)
jIH = cause

puqvaD Sut vItuQmoH jIH
I dress the child, I put clothes on the child, I cause someone 
unspecified to wear clothes (i.e., I am not in the habit of letting the 
child walk around naked)
puqvaD = beneficiary
Sut = theme or patient (exactly which is not important)
jIH = cause

These are three distinct situations, not a progression of sentences all 
describing the same thing. In none of them are we describing a 
perfective or continuous situation; we are talking of habit or 
occasional action.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/