[Tlhingan-hol] {-moH}

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

It’s interesting that you’d mark my term “agent of causation” as a problem, and then replace it with “causer”, which is mysteriously less of a problem.

I get it.

You are saying that unlike any other verb suffix, {-moH} changes the action of the verb. Now, the verb is not doing the action of the root verb. It’s doing the causing of the action of what is now a different verb. So, {ghojmoH} does not actually mean “cause to learn”. {ghojmoH} now actually MEANS “teach”. So, any object of the verb “teach” is the valid object of {ghojmoH}.

It’s not that I don’t understand this. I just don’t like it. No other suffix acts like this, changing the nature of the objects of the root verb on which they are attached.

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



> On Nov 22, 2015, at 1:27 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol