[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> Meanwhile, I see {HeghqangmoHlu’pu’} as one of the ugliest canon
> examples of anything meaningful.

qatlh 'oH moH law' latlh moH puS?

taH:
> There are no rules for what {-qang} refers to described anywhere but
> what can be derived from the canon example,

pab chutmey law'vaD nIb ghu'vetlh.

taH:
> 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.

The thing is, though, that canon does show there's breadth in how the causative interacts with Type 2s. {vIchennISmoH} (MSN 30-11-1997) and {vISay'nISmoH} (PK) show that {-moH} can raise the scope of {-nIS} along with it, but on the other hand, {SuvqangmoHchu'} (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7:20) and {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} (TKD p.45) show that this isn't necessarily the case. So it's likely {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} can also mean "it was willing to cause him to die".

And there are always possibilities in terms of helper words or recastings: for "it was willing to cause him to die", {HeghmoH 'e' SIQqang}, {HeghmoH 'e' lajqang}, or even just {HoHqang} in the right circumstances.

taH:
> 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.

Tangentially, I've often wondered if the fact that {neH} doesn't use {'e'} as a complementiser might mean that the state of Klingon we see is actually in a state of flux in which {neH} is on its way to becoming a verb suffix like the Type 2s. Polysynthetic languages often have quite complex continua of what constitutes a lexical versus a morphological contrast and I don't think it's fair to expect Klingon to be any different. In older Klingon, one might assume that *{vIHoH 'e' vIneH} was grammatical. In modern Klingon, the association is becoming closer: {vIHoH vIneH}. Ultimately a future variety might have transformed {neH} into a full-blown suffix, producing *{vIHoHneH} "I want to kill it". In Terran languages such a thing is already known: in Inuktitut, there's a suffix /-uma-/ that transforms "VERB" into "want to "VERB": /igluliuqpunga/ "I build a house", /igluliurumajunga/ "I want to build a house".

Academic, of course, but I find this sort of thing interesting, not least of the reasons why being that there's evidence Okrand built such a history into Klingon already. The evidential suffix {-bej} has parallels in Pirahã, where the evidential /-xáagahá/ "action observed or watched by the speaker" is composed of the normally separate copula /xáaga-/ "to be" in composition with a simpler evidential, /-há/ "known with complete certainty by the speaker but not necessarily through direct observation". Similarly, I wonder if {-bej} was planned by Okrand as being the result of a fossilised {bej} "to watch": *{DaHoH 'e' vIbej} "I watched you kill him" -> *{DaHoH vIbej} -> {DaHoHbej} "you certainly killed him (I know because I watched you do it)".

(poD vay')

taH:
>  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}.

The canon examples with {-nIS} indicate that the connection is not explicitly defined by the limitations of the suffixal order.

Again, I'm brought to thinking of another Terran polysynthetic language. In Ubykh, causatives of trivalent verbs have to be done periphrastically, using the auxiliary /ğ[e]-a-ş-/ "to cause" and a non-finite form of the base verb: /yıntuın/ "she gives it to him", /yıntu ğasşın/ "she makes her give it to him". But in periphrastic causatives, the negative always appears on the finite verb, never in the non-finite form: there's no functional distinction between "she makes her not give it to him" and "she does not make her give it to him", both taking the form /yıntu ğasımdışın/.

Similarly, there's a clear ambiguity of interpretation in {HeghqangmoH} in isolation; but it'd usually be easily understood according to the context, just as it is with {-bogh}-clauses without head-marking.

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

Holna' pat pupqu' tu'lu'be'. pImbe' tlhIngan Hol. Hol luvuS chutmey, 'ach Hoch HolvaD teHchu'. moH qechvetlh 'e' vIlajQo' jIH'e'.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151220/fdf6108e/attachment-0001.html>