[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[De'vID]

'eD:
> Also in TKD is {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} <it made him/her willing to die>.
> Perhaps {-lu} makes this an exceptional case, since presumably you wouldn't
> be discussing the volition of an indefinite/unspecified subject. However,
> would {vIHeghqangmoHpu'} mean <I made him/her willing to die> or <I
> willingly made him/her die>? The former, I think, since if I made him die, I
> must have killed him, so I'd simply say {vIHoHqangpu'} <I killed him/her
> willingly>.

Based on {vISay'nISmoH}, {vIHeghqangmoH} should mean "I am willing to
cause him to die". (This assumes that, however suffixes interact with
each other, suffixes of the same type behave in the same way. If this
isn't true, well, then all bets are off.)

Whatever "the action" is that {-pu'} indicates the completion of, the
willingness is still on the part of the subject ("I" rather than
"he").

The fact that {vIHoHqang} is another way to say the same thing is no
evidence that it means something else.

For "I made him/her willing to die", you'd have to recast it, e.g.,
{HeghqangwI' vImojmoH} or something.

'eD:
> (Though this could generally mean <I complete being willing to
> kill him/her>. Killing or changing one's mind are the two ways the
> perfective aspect would enter into this. The ambiguity makes me think this
> would be a perfect response by the huntsman when the queen asks if he's
> killed Snow White.)

If {vIHeghqangmoH} means {vIHoHqang}, then {vIHeghqangmoHpu'} should
mean {vIHoHqangpu'}. Based on {vItlhapnISpu'} "I needed to get that
information", {vIHoHqangpu'} ought to mean something like "I was
willing to kill him/her" ("I was/am/will be willing to have killed
him", which, absent other context, makes most sense as "I was
willing").

'eD:
> So in this example from TKD, cause and perfective aspect are on the part of
> the unspecified object, but the (presumably still incomplete) action and
> volition are clearly on the part of the object.

{-lu'} just throws a wrench into everything. The subject of {-moH} is
now unspecified, while {-qang} applies to the object of {HeghmoH}. I
don't know what you mean that the aspect is now "on the part of" the
unspecified object. It's not on either the subject or the objection:
it's on "the action".

-- 
De'vID