[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

I see {vIHoHpu'} as more specific in meaning than {vIHeghmoHpu'}. The former means I killed him, like maybe I strangled him, stabbed him, shot him, or shoved him into the path of an oncoming train. The latter means that I caused him to die. Maybe I hired someone to kill him. Maybe I told him something depressing and he killed himself. Maybe I plugged in the air conditioner, blew a circuit breaker on the same circuit as his heart/lung machine. Maybe I sneezed and startled him enough to lose his balance and he fell in the path of an oncoming train. Maybe I borrowed his cell phone, with his permission, and while I was away, he had a heart attack and couldn’t call 911. Basically, I was a critical, causal link, perhaps unwittingly blocking his only escape from death.

Meanwhile, I see {HeghqangmoHlu’pu’} as one of the ugliest canon examples of anything meaningful. There are no rules for what {-qang} refers to described anywhere but what can be derived from the canon example, and if this is to be considered a rule, then we don’t have a way of expressing “It was willing to cause him to die,” since willingness and causation are both position-fixed by suffix Type and we don’t have external helper words to convey these meanings in other ways.

It’s arbitrary that {-qang} is a suffix and {neH} is a verb. Having chosen to make these similar concepts handled by dissimilar grammatical structures, we wind up with differing limits on expression between the two concepts.

If we wanted to say “The guard wanted to cause the officer to die,” vs. “The guard caused the officer to be want to die,” there’s no problem. {yaS HeghmoH ‘avwI' neH ‘avwI'} vs. {Hegh yaS yaSvaD neHmoH ‘avwI’}. I’ll entertain arguments that it should be {yaSvaD Hegh yaS neHmoH ‘avwI’}. Given that there is no {‘e’} to clarify positions of things, it’s a little messy. But still, you can tell the difference expressing either idea.

 But “The guard was willing to cause the officer to die,” vs. “The guard caused the officer to be willing to die,” is not really distinguishable. There’s only one option for either: {yaS HeghqangmoH ‘avwI’}. There’s only one place to hang {-qang}, and only one verb. Does {-qang} connect to {Hegh} or to {-moH}? According to the canon example, it connects to {-moH}, meaning there’s no way to make it connect to {Hegh}.

We fall back on the ugly idea that this is a stupid, arbitrary limit of expression, just like a “natural” language.

So, I just focus on the gazillion other things that can be said clearly in Klingon and pretend this problem didn’t exist.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Dec 19, 2015, at 10:15 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> '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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol