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

[Brent Kesler]

I'm getting really confused now. Sometimes I think you're approaching
Klingon like Wilkins' Philosophical Langauge, thinking that it should make
intuitive sense to any intelligent being. At other times, I think you're
treating it like a naturally occurring language that has to be thoroughly
studied to be understood. I can't tell if you're switching between two
modes of thought without realizing it, or if I'm just failing to understand
your argument.

For example, you wrote, "{QeH} without {-moH} does not take an object
because its meaning does not include an object, but the meaning of {QeHmoH}
does." I disagreed, because I thought you were taking the philosophical
approach. After all, you focused on the *meaning* of {QeH}. I see the
meaning of a word and its grammatical structure as two separate things.

There is nothing about the concept of anger that determines the grammatical
structure of any verb that represents it in any language. To demonstrate
this, I offered hypothetical alternatives for the structure of {QeH}. It
could be an intransitive verb (as in Klingon). Some languages have a
transitive verb, but assign different thematic roles to the object. I gave
two hypothetical examples, roughly lining up with theme (*jupwI' vIQeH) and
topic (*bomvam vIQeH). Other languages could have an ergative verb (*jIH
muQeH). All these hypothetical uses deal with the concept of anger, but the
concept of anger does not favor one use over the others. The grammatical
structure of the word is independent of the meaning.

When you say "the meaning of {QeH} does not take an object", what I hear
is, "only one grammatical structure is possible since semantics determines
grammatical structure". The terms you use to describe Klingon seem to
consistently have that underlying assumption:

- the meaning of {QeH} does not take an object
- the meaning of {QeHmoH} does
- No rule forbids us from putting objects on verbs of quality, except the rule
of "that makes no sense."

You can see why I thought you assumed that the semantics of {QeH} and
{-moH} drives their grammatical structure.

But then, you also say, "I'm not using semantics to devise a rule for -moH;
I'm using semantics to illustrate the use of -moH." All you're trying to do
is describe how {-moH} works. Okay, but your description still doesn't
account for Qov's example:

1. Qong Qang.
2. Qang vIQongmoH.

Someone trying to use your semantic description of {-moH} would be confused
at this point. You wrote, "The subject changes from whatever semantic role
it has to CAUSE, and all other arguments the verb takes keep their original
role".  Since {Qong} has only one argument, it seems {QongmoH} should have
only one argument. Instead, it acquires a *new* argument with a *new*
semantic role. On top of that, the new object ends up being the old subject
pretty consistently. That's an interesting pattern that deserves
explanation.

All the explanation you've given so far is that the "meaning" of a verb
like {QeHmoH} can take an object and that "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 not sure how to use this. If your semantic approach works, you
need to clarify this part of your argument.

What I think you're saying is that the new object is the semantic role of
beneficiary. When you apply {-moH} to a transitive verb, that verb already
has an object; all its slots are full, so the beneficiary has to be marked
with {-vaD}. But when you apply {-moH} to an intransitive verb, it "has
ample room" for an object, so you can fill the slot instead of using
{-vaD}. Is this your argument?

bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120209/777f9aac/attachment.html>