[Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}

[SuStel]

On 11/22/2015 12:58 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv wrote:
> Apparently, according to canon, an unmarked noun before a verb with
> {-moH} can either be the object of causation (the subject of the root
> verb -- the one caused to perform the action of the verb) or it can
> be the direct object of the root verb (the target of the action of
> the verb). I can teach Worf (the object of causation of learning). I
> can teach Klingon language (the object of learning). You know that
> cause-to-learn means Worf is caused to learn and you know Klingon
> language is learned.

Again, it's your terminology that's making the problem. There's no such 
thing in Klingon as an "object of causation" or a "direct object of the 
root verb."

Hol vIghoj
I learn the language

Hol vIghojmoH
I teach the language

Hol qaghojmoH
I teach you the language

In all three cases, {Hol} is the object and {jIH} is the (elided) 
subject. That is the entirety of the syntax at work here.

But the semantics of the sentences are different. In the first, {jIH} is 
the agent. In the second and third, {jIH} is the causer. In all three 
{Hol} is the theme. In the third, {SoH} is the beneficiary.

> But if it's okay to be that kind of vague with a verb that makes it
> clear who is learning and what is being learned, where do we draw the
> line with a verb and nouns that could function in either role?

We decide this by looking at the canon. We can also make educated 
guesses. Pretty much what we've always done.

> If I cause hitting and Sam and Fred are involved and you don't
> otherwise know who hit whom, and I say {*Sam* vIqIpmoH}, then is Sam
> the object of causation, and I caused him to hit Fred, or is Sam the
> object of the root verb and I caused Fred to hit Sam?

My educated guess is that {qIp} is not the sort of verb one generally 
causes other people to do, so the sentence {Sam vIqIpmoH} would only be 
interpreted as "I make Sam hit (things in general)." I'm aware of no 
canon that contradicts this.

I can't think of any canon sentences that allow a causer to make an 
agent act on a patient; we've only seen causers make agents or 
experiencers act for beneficiaries or recipients. I don't believe this 
is allowed. Hence, you can't say "I caused Fred to hit Sam" all in one 
sentence; it must be split up: {Fred vIqIpmoH; Sam qIp}.

> We had a problem like this with relative clauses which we resolved by
> adding {-'e'} to the head noun if the verb with {-bogh} had both a
> subject and an object.

I never had a problem with that, myself. It's rare to come up with a 
sentence where the ambiguity matters and you can't figure it out from 
context.

> Is there a way to clarify this stupidly vague mess that verbs with
> {-moH} have been revealed in canon to be?

That's exactly what I've been doing!

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