[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

Mon Nov 23 12:14:01 PST 2015

2015-11-23 21:01 GMT+01:00 Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
>
Well, do we know that it doesn't work with third persons? Why shouldn't it?
It seems a bit arbitrary (though not impossible) to assume that the prefix
trick only works for the first and second person. I don't have TKD or KGT
here at my office, so I'm not sure what Okrand explicitly said. And I have
no possibility to search through all sentences where the prefix trick is
applied.

I think it *is* possible with third persons. I don't see a reason to assume
an extra rule that forbids this process for third person indirect objects.
If it *is* possible, then this also explains why {-vaD} isn't needed (see
my English examples, where no 'to' is needed after the dative shift). And
that was my whole point, and my analysis.

And yes, from that I would also conclude that it's possible to say {paqmey
lunob.} in the sense of 'They give the books to him.'

> 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>:
>
>> 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
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/487665c9/attachment-0001.html>