[Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}

[Alan Anderson]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:58 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> 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.

Yep. {waqwIj vIlamHa'choHmoH} is an example of the first usage, and
{quHDaj qawmoH} is a good example of the second.

> 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?

There's no need to draw a line. As with many things about language in
general, context should make it obvious which one is meant. If it
doesn't, then the speaker is being vague, either by intent or by
laziness.

> 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?

If Fred isn't in the sentence, he's probably not being hit. With Sam
as the only object of any sort stated, it's pretty clear that he's the
one being caused to hit. If Fred is the only other person involved,
the implication is that he's the one getting hit, but that's not
stated outright in the specific sentence you're putting forth.

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

I'd go with the {Ha'quj} Skybox card as a guide. It shows a verb's
object remaining the same with or without {-moH}, it puts the agent of
causation in the subject role, and it marks the "agent" of the root
verb with the suffix {-vaD}.

Practically all of the unremarkable examples of V-moH we have avoid
the vagueness completely, by not having a verb that typically takes an
object in the first place. We run into a mess only when we try to find
a consistent underlying rule that applies to all types of verbs. If
you reinterpret things like {chobelmoH} as using a kind of prefix
trick, the mess settles down a lot. It still has some rough corners,
and maybe the usual interpretation is different based on whether the
verb is one of quality or not, but it doesn't make the language
unusable.

-- ghunchu'wI'