[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
> 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.

To be fair, of course it doesn't. Given that a second class of "object" didn't appear until the TKD addendum, I'm not surprised that the body of TKD would simply refer to the direct object as the "object", even if it did intend to refer specifically to the direct object. Before the addendum, there wasn't any need to split "objects" up into sub-types.

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> 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?

jang SuStel, jatlh:
> {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)."

This is further supported by S31, where we see exactly this kind of causative construction:

Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey
"[The howl] serves to warn the other dead" (S31)

The object of {ghuH} is the patient: the thing prepared for (from the gloss "prepare for, be alerted to"). But the syntactic object in the S31 sentence, the object of {ghuHmoH}, is *not* the patient, the thing prepared for. Instead, it's the beneficiary, or causee, if I can use that term: those who are being alerted. It's what one would have expected in the {-vaD} role if one were to base the pattern on the {Ha'quj} sentence from S20.

However, this does raise the question of how you express "the commander caused (someone unspecified) to hit the warrior". Would it have to be periphrastic, as {vay'vaD SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Or can there not be an unspecified causee, left out of the verbal agreement structure entirely? Are you arguing that such causee-omission is impossible in causatives like {SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}? Because the same type of causee-omission is quite feasible for causatives of monovalent verbs: {SeymoH QeH} "anger excites" (TKW p.196). Why would it not be permissible for polyvalent verbs too, thus yielding a reading of "the commander made (someone) hit the warrior"? I don't see any satisfactory explanation, especially since the possibility of causee-omission also resolves ever-resurfacing issues with {tuQmoH}. Examples like {may'luchlIj nIv yItuQmoH} "put on your finest armour" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 21.8) can't be easily explained any other way.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151122/a4bbf2e1/attachment.html>