[Tlhingan-hol] Objects with -moH

[SuStel]

On 6/2/2014 11:07 AM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
> Yes, the “prefix trick” and some excellent discussion that unites the
> canon is specifically referenced at the bottom of my first e-mail. I’m
> not confused about the grammar here. I want to make sure I’m neither
> being too careful nor too presumptuous in stating what is uncontroversial.
>
> Are you suggesting that I introduce the prefix trick for the beginner
> now, reduce the material presented, or leave it the same? I want the
> beginner to know that there is more here than meets the eye, or they
> will assume some way is correct and start using it. **I** can avoid any
> situation that requires a choice of objects, but without pointing out to
> the beginner that the peril exists, I can’t keep her away from it.

You don't want to introduce the prefix trick here, as that opens the way 
to asking questions about what an object actually is, whether Klingon 
cares about direct and indirect objects, how those are used, and so 
forth. TKD never makes the distinction until the addendum. In your 
explanation, you're also avoiding the issue by not mentioning direct and 
indirect objects, but you speak of a "second object," though you 
immediately say it's beyond the lesson's scope.

I recommend not adding more to your current explanation. "Beyond the 
scope" is a good way to say that the issue is complex, but let's not 
think about it right now.

You might want to make a note about HOW a student can avoid this 
problem. However, I suggest NOT phrasing it in terms of adding causation 
to a transitive sentence, or of transforming one sentence into another 
by adding -moH). Rather, you should recommend that students avoid 
attempting single-verb sentences about one noun causing a second noun to 
do something to a third noun, because it is unclear how the grammar 
works. You can even give an example, perhaps of such a sentence split 
into grammatically uncontroversial parts.

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