[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[SuStel]

On 12/21/2015 11:14 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 9:55 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
>> <mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> De'vID:
>> Some suffixes affect "the action" itself: {-choH}, {-qa'}, {-moH},
>> {-laH}, {-lu'}. {-moH} is a bit weird because the subject of the verb
>> with this suffix is not the subject of the verb without it. {-lu'} is
>> even weirder because it changes the roles of the subject and object.
>> Some other suffixes change what/who the action is being done to:
>> {-'egh}, {-chuq}. Some express something about the speaker or the
>> listener: {-chu'}, {-bej'}, {-law'}, {-ba'}, {-neS}.
>>
>> There is some ambiguity as to what meaning is applied to what
>> primarily when {-moH} and {-lu'} are involved with another suffix.
>> Some other pairs can also cause ambiguity in combination, like {-choH}
>> and {-laH}. (Does {QongchoHlaH} mean "begin to be able to sleep" or
>> "able to begin to sleep"?)
>>
>> As the type 2 and type 6 suffixes are described in TKD, {luyu'nISpu'}
>> cannot mean that the need to interrogate is a completed action. Type 2
>> suffixes don't change the action described by the verb, they merely
>> describe the amount of volition the subject has in carrying it out.
>
> This was my initial point of confusion. When we combine a Type 2 suffix,
> which you describe as describing something about the subject, and {-moH}
> or {-lu’}, which change the identity of the subject, what does the Type
> 2 suffix apply to?
>
> This was my initial problem with {HeghqangmoHlu’}. When I first saw it,
> I assumed it had to mean “One is willing to cause him to die,” and
> Okrand’s translation of “It caused him to be willing to die,” made me
> wince. “Hate” is probably not too strong a word. It violated my
> understanding of how these suffixes worked. In that translation, {-qang}
> is applied to the subject of the original root verb, not the agent of
> causation (my term because, well, that’s what the subject is for a verb
> with {-moH}), which is the subject of {HeghmoH}. I saw it as broken grammar.

It may simply be the case that suffixes that are said to describe the 
subject are really describing the grammatical subject OR the semantic 
agent. I'm thinking especially of the volition/predisposition suffixes 
and {-laH}. Okrand simply didn't make the distinction, thinking only of 
verbs without {-moH} when he wrote it, or thinking that it was too 
technical an idea to include in this layman's book.

This would allow the ambiguity we apparently see in the language while 
explaining examples that appear to break the literal meaning of the 
explanation in TKD.

So while a strictly by-the-book analysis of {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} would be 
thus:

Hegh	someone dies
-qang	subject is willing to perform action
-moH	subject causes something to change
-lu'	subject is indefinite
-pu'	action is complete

"something indefinite was willing to cause him to die"

perhaps what we're really seeing is this:

Hegh	someone dies
-qang	subject OR agent is willing to perform action
-moH	subject causes something to change
-lu'	subject is indefinite
-pu'	action is complete

"something indefinite was willing to cause him to die" OR
"something indefinite caused him to be willing to die"

>> {-moH} changes the role of the subject, whereas {-choH} changes the
>> action.
>
> So, if {-moH} changes the role of subject, then one would expect that by
> doing so, it changed the entity that the Type 2 suffix applies to, but
> in {HeghqangmoHlu’}, this is not the case. The new role of subject
> apparently doesn’t include having willingness ascribed to it, unless
> what you are saying is that the new role of the (old) subject is one of
> two objects of the new subject.

{-moH} changes the role of the subject, but it doesn't change the 
subject. Okrand's translation of {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} suggests only that 
{-qang} does not refer to the subject once {-moH} is included.

Another possibility is that the volition/predisposition suffixes get 
slippery when an indefinite subject is in play. Maybe they can—but don't 
have to—refer to an object when the subject is indefinite, since there 
may not BE a subject to be willing or needing or ready or afraid.

This could all very well be Klingon's version of English losing its 
subjunctive mood. Even though people say things like "if I was a 
butterfly I would have wings" instead of "if I were a butterfly I would 
have wings," we still understand them when they inflect the verb 
"wrong," and we usually don't think of it as an error worthy of notice 
or correction, if we even notice it at all.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name