[Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

I did not intend to imply that it makes the language unusable. I just wanted to point out that this is a very rare element in the language where nouns of different functional relationships with the verb go unmarked into the same slot. It is a problem uniquely created by this one suffix, and there’s not really much if anything else like it in the grammar.

My earlier error was to believe that since, when it is used with stative verbs (that normally have no object), since the subject of the root verb is consistently used as the direct object of the verb-plus-{-moH}, that could be generalized to verbs that normally do take a direct object. I did recognize that this created a bit of a mess when the root verb did have  a direct object, since there is no Klingon grammar that allows two unmarked and separate nouns to precede the verb.

For the verb {ghojmoH}, we apparently can use {-vaD} for the subject of the root verb and have an explicit, unmarked object of the root verb. I suspect that is true less because the subject of the root verb should generally get {-vaD} than it is that the subject of {ghoj} benefits from being taught, but the topic taught is less obviously a beneficiary. I’m not sure that this solution can be generalized neatly to other verbs.

For myself, it seems that certain verbs with objects handle this more gracefully than others do, and {ghojmoH} is a very graceful verb in this regard. It’s quite likely that most verbs with direct objects would prove less graceful.

When I see a graceless opportunity for using {-moH}, I’ll probably recast with some other grammatical tool. Certainly {ngeQchuqmeH gharqan Qugh je Qugh vIyuv} is a little clearer than {QughvaD gharqan vIQIpmoH}, since the latter doesn’t explain my mechanism for causing the hitting to happen, and it doesn’t have the simple weirdness of having Kruge be the beneficiary of my causing Garkon to be hit.

It’s not about being useable or not. It’s about being orderly in a graceful and lovely way, vs. following ugly rules to create ugly expressions of vague meaning.

Ditransitive verbs created by {-moH}. vIpar neH.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Nov 22, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:
> 
> 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'
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol