[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

On 11/21/2015 11:43 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh wrote:
> Basically, what we have is something messier than anything else in
> Klingon grammar in terms of assigning a role for a noun in a
> sentence. We normally have an unmarked place for a subject (the agent
> of the action of the verb) following the verb, an unmarked place for
> a direct object (the recipient or target of the action of the verb)
> before the verb, and everything else is marked with a type 5 noun
> suffix.

That's not accurate, on several points.

TKD is very consistent with its use of the word "object" instead of the 
phrase "direct object." It only starts to make this distinction when the 
idea of using {-vaD} to mark an indirect object is brought up in the 
addendum. But this indirect object is clearly a semantic role, not a 
syntactic one, as {-vaD} already existed and its meaning didn't change; 
Okrand just said {-vaD} can be used to mean an indirect object. When 
something MEANS something that's semantics, not syntax.

So Klingon sentence SYNTAX has a single, unmarked "object" before the 
verb, not a "direct object." My point has been that Klingon SEMANTICS 
allows that syntactic object to be what in semantics might be the 
patient (undergoes the action, what I've been calling, somewhat 
inaccurately, the semantic direct object) OR the recipient (goal of a 
change of ownership or possession, what I've been inaccurately calling 
the semantic indirect object).

Next, you use the word agent as equivalent to subject. Subject is a 
syntactic role meaning the entity that does the verb's action, 
regardless of whether that entity actually performs the action itself or 
causes someone else to perform it or just experiences it. An agent is a 
semantic role in which a noun deliberately performs the action. 
Meanwhile, other semantic roles can also be used: causer, experiencer, 
theme, and others. The subject of a Klingon sentence doesn't actually 
have to perform the action of the verb in the real world.

Finally, there are nouns that come before the object that aren't marked 
with type 5 noun suffixes, like timestamps, and of course there are 
adverbials.

> So, with {-moH}, we apparently have two different nouns that can be
> unmarked before the verb.

We have only one syntactic role that comes before the verb with {-moH}: 
the object. The object may have its state changed by the action or it 
may experience the action or it may receive the result of the action, or 
take on other roles. One of those roles, that of receiver, TKD's 
addendum calls indirect object, and it calls another role, patient, as 
direct object. It's being as imprecise with its terminology as I have 
been doing.

> Instead of an unmarked subject following the verb, we have an
> unmarked agent of cause. He’s not the one doing the action. He’s the
> one causing the action to be done.

In syntax, the subject is the subject. In semantics, the one doing the 
action deliberately is the agent; the one experiencing an action is the 
experiencer; the one causing the action to take place is the causer, and 
so on. Any of them can be the subject.

In a {-moH} sentence, the subject remains the subject. Its semantic role 
is different.

    jIQuch
    I am happy
    jIH = subject, experiencer

    qaQuchmoH
    I make you happy
    jIH = subject, causer
    SoH = object, experiencer

> The unmarked noun before the verb with {-moH} can apparently be
> either the subject (the agent of the action of the verb), or the
> direct object (the recipient or target of the action) of the verb. He
> who causes the action is in the place normally held by he who does
> the action, and either he who does the action or he who has the
> action done to him are now in the spot normally reserved for he who
> has the action done to him.

You're so close! You just have to understand that these roles aren't 
subject and object.

> In a sentence constructed as {noun1 verb-moH noun2}, the only tool we
> have to determine what role noun1 has in the sentence is to recognize
> from the context of normal action of the verb what sort of noun
> normally is the subject and what sort of noun normally is the
> object.

Yes! WHAT SORT OF NOUN IS THE SUBJECT = WHAT SEMANTIC ROLE THE SUBJECT 
HAS. Likewise for object.

> It’s easier with {ghoj} because a person usually learns, and a
> language or some other topic is usually learned, but what if you have
> something like {SuvI’ qIpmoH ra’wI’}? Is the warrior being caused to
> hit, or is someone else being caused to hit him?

{ra'wI'} is the causer—the {-moH} suffix tells us that. Since the prefix 
trick doesn't work for third-person objects, {SuvwI'} MUST be the agent. 
{SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'} can only mean "the commander made the warrior hit 
(someone)."

> I’ve enjoyed having the Klingon language more versatile in its
> capacity to express ideas than this. Now, it’s muddier.

No, it's not. It's just a more subtle set of rules than you thought, but 
they're still rules.

Klingon sentences can take at most one subject and one object. Each of 
these may take on a variety of semantic roles, depending on the verb and 
the verb's suffixes. If a verb acts on both a recipient and a noun with 
another semantic role, the latter becomes the object. A recipient or 
beneficiary may be included using {-vaD}, or a first- or second-person 
recipient or beneficiary may be indicated by making the verb prefix 
agree with it instead of the object. The prefix does not agree with the 
object, it agrees with the appropriate semantic role for that sentence. 
Most, but not all, of the time this is the same as agreeing with the object.

Example: {ja'}
The subject of {ja'} is typically an agent (deliberately performs the 
action). It may take as its object the patient (undergoes the action and 
changes state—it is the message which has now been reported) or the 
beneficiary (entity for whose benefit the action is performed). If both 
types of object are desired, the beneficiary may be included with {-vaD} 
or the verb prefix may indicate a first- or second-person beneficiary, 
and the patient becomes the object.

Example: {ghoj}
The subject of {ghoj} is typically either an agent or an experiencer, 
the difference being only whether the learning was deliberate or not. 
The object is typically a theme (undergoes the action like a patient but 
does not change its state). When {-moH} is used, the subject is a 
causer, while the object may be the agent or experiencer or may still be 
the theme.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/