[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Will Martin]

It might help me if you explain how stative verbs (“be verbs)” behave differently when {-moH} is added.

As I remember it, these were the words we have had the most experience with using {-moH}. They set the standard, and initially, when someone thought of using it with a verb that can take a direct object, there was some confusion, and controversy ever since.

Klingon grammar in most every other area is consistent. When I talk about messiness, I’m talking about inconsistency. I’m fine with exceptions, but exceptions to exceptions to exceptions just gets a little too weird for me.

Worf and the room have the same semantic and syntactic relationship with teaching (causing to learn) and heating (causing to be hot) respectively. They should have the same grammar applied to them. Okrand has given us no reason to expect otherwise.

No one has addressed what the difference is between Worf and the room, in relation to the two verbs, and why one gets {-vaD}, but the other doesn’t. For that matter, Okrand hasn’t given us a reason that Worf gets {-vaD} if there’s a direct object, and he doesn’t get it if there isn’t. His semantic or syntactic or grammatical role in learning has not changed between the two examples.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:58 PM, David Holt <kenjutsuka at live.com> wrote:
> 
> ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:
> 
> > And if that’s true for {wo’rIv} in this example, why is it not true for
> > {pa’} in {pa’ tujmoH qul}? Since {wo’rIv} is the one who is caused to
> > learn and {pa’} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that
> > {pa’vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write
> > “The fire heats the room.” The room is the beneficiary of the
> > heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why do
> > we draw a line here? What is the difference? Nobody has touched
> > this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those arguing
> > this point just ignore it and try to redirect the problem away from
> > facing the grammatical issue at hand.
> 
> I do, indeed, hold to the concept that Klingons note a difference in the stative verbs ("be verbs)" and the active verbs and that the stative verbs work differently with {-moH} than active verbs do.  It's not the only difference between the types of verbs, so I am comfortable adding this to the list of differences.
> 
> janSIy
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/fa17116d/attachment-0001.html>