[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

Mon Nov 23 12:01:39 PST 2015

I agreed with you up to the point where you suggest that the prefix trick can be used.

Note that the prefix trick only works when the indirect object is first or second person. It’s never used with third person for all parties, as you suggest. And without that, you haven’t explained why {-vaD} is not needed when there is no explicit direct object.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM, André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If I may jump into the heated debate... I've been following this discussion the whole time, and I think it actually is you, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv, who is trying to bend the rules and come up with grammar that is not supported by canon. You draw very unlikely conclusions from one or two canonical sentences and apply your theory to types of sentences for which we already have canon examples, that already contradict your theory. I'll explain what I mean...
> 
> {-moH} is a causative suffix which increases the valency of the verb by +1, i.e. an intransitive verb like 'to sleep' (including stative verbs like 'to be hot') becomes transitive, a transitive verb like 'to learn' becomes ditransitive. Nothing new here. The new argument introduced, the causer, is always the new subject. We all agree on that. The former subject is demoted to the status of a direct object. That is why we have:
> 
> {tul pa'.} = 'The room is hot.'
> {pa' tulmoH qul.} = 'The fire heats up the room.'
> 
> This simple rule is so basic that no one would have doubts about it. It doesn't even present difficulties to beginners. And it's backed up by dozens of examples from canon, e.g.:
> 
> {tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH.} = 'I form a boarding party.'
> {Duj ronmoH 'owI'.} = 'The pilot banks the vessel.'
> {yIngaQmoH!} = 'Secure him!'
> {Hoch qImmoH mu'meyDaj [...]} = 'All were bemused by his words [...]'
> 
> The third example, {ngaQ}, is not just intransitive, like the others, but also stative, it's one of those adjective-like be-verbs. We have no example in cannon that shows that the new object, the causee, of a causativized stative verb (or intransitive verb) is marked by {-vaD}. None.
> 
> When causativizing a transitive verb, the causer becomes the subject. Now, it's reasonable to assume that all the former agents get demoted, because that is what happens in many Terran languages. The old direct object would then become an indirect object or part of a prepositional phrase, while the old subject becomes the new direct object: Worf remembers his heritage. ---> The sash reminds Worf of his heritage. Right? Well, in English yes.
> But we know that Klingon isn't a Terran language. And probably not even in all Terran languages causatives or case hierarchies work the same. So here it's different: The causer is the new subject, the former subject becomes the indirect object marked with {-vaD}, the former object remains the direct object. Here are the sentences again, the first one isn't cannon but we know it's right:
> 
> {quHDaj qaw ghaH.} = 'He remembers his heritage.'
> {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds him of his heritage.'
> 
> That's just how it is. What we can do with that sentence, now, is taking away the arguments. I can remove the indirect object, because it can be implied, and I can also remove the direct object, because that's possible in Klingon. We'd simply understand an implied "it" there:
> 
> {quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds [someone] of his heritage.'
> This someone could as well be Riker or Data. Anyone who upon seeing the sash thinks: Oh right, yeah, he's Klingon.
> 
> {ghaHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds him [of something].'
> Literally, it makes-remember something to him. It's a vague sentence, but still grammatical. Because of the null-prefix we interprete it as an it. The sash makes it be remembered to him. The sash reminds him of it.
> 
> And there is the prefix-trick, linguistically also known as the dative shift. So we can form:
> 
> {ghaH qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds him.'
> 
> I think, so far we've only seen the dative shift work without the former indirect object being stated explicitly. Things like {paq munob.} 'He gave me the book.' There is no slot left in this sentence for a {ghaH}, because it's already taken up by {paq}. We've only seen dative shifts / prefix-tricks work with indirect objects that were not overtly mentioned, but implied by the agreement prefix on the verb.
> If I'm Worf, then I could say the following three sentences, in which the role of the prefix shift is clearer:
> 
> {jIHvaD quHwIj qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds me of my heritage.'
> {jIHvaD qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds me [of it].' (null-prefix meaning 3SG>3SG, here)
> {muqawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds me.'
> 
> I think there is no counterevidence that suggests that the prefix-trick couldn't work for overt nouns, right? At least, if there's no other direct object filling the slot. Hence, I derive:
> 
> {wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds Worf.'
> 
> Now compare this one to the one where we left out {ghaHvaD}:
> 
> {quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.} = 'The sash reminds [someone] of his heritage.'
> 
> They look the same on the surface, structurally. But actually very different things have happened. If I could draw syntax trees here, you could see it. For a moment, take the English ditransitive verb "to teach" as a parallel. It works the same:
> 
> I teach Klingon to you.
> I teach Klingon.
> I teach to you. >> I teach you.
> 
> They're all correct English, aren't they? The "I teach to you." one seems incomplete and we prefer to apply the dative shift in English.
> 
> And I strongly believe that all this above (it's not so complex actually, I just wanted to spell it all out to make it clear) is the underlying structure that allows us to say:
> 
> {SoHvaD tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {tlhIngan vIghojmoH.}
> {SoHvaD vIghojmoH.} >> {qaghojmoH.}
> 
> So there really is no difference between Worf and the room. The difference lies in the nature (to be precise: in the valency or transitivity) of the verb we modify. {tuj} is intransitive and has a valency of 1, so the syntax is trivial. {ghoj} is transitive and has a valency of 2, so there the issue of assigning the roles arises. Most Terran languages follow the hierarchy subject > direct object > indirect object > prepositional phrase, but Klingon doesn't have to follow these rules. It was designed to be inhuman (or let's say: un-English).
> 
> So, I see no problem here. I acknowledge that it might be a little confusing, but it's no reason to invent new grammar and suddenly speak of fires heating up FOR rooms or things like that and claim that canon predicts such sentences when it does clearly not.
> 
> As for {ja'chuq}, that's a different question. I don't have an answer for that yet. I'll have to think about it more.
> 
> - André
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-11-23 19:28 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com <mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>>:
> 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 <mailto: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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cc7a9690/attachment-0001.html>