[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[De'vID]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> I see {vIHoHpu'} as more specific in meaning than {vIHeghmoHpu'}.

Sure. I was only considering their equivalence from the point of view
of their grammatical relation to {-qang} (type 2 suffixes), not their
exact meaning. Any other "transitive" verb could have been used to
make the same point.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> 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.

I don't understand why {HeghqangmoH} wouldn't mean exactly "it was
willing to cause him to die".

We have the example of {vISay'nISmoH} "I need to wash it", literally,
"I need to cause it to be clean". It's exactly parallel.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>  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}.

It connects neither to {Hegh} nor to {-moH}. It connects to the
subject of the sentence, whatever that is. Type 2 suffixes are about
the volition of the subject.

-- 
De'vID