[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}

[Brent Kesler]

Once more unto the breach...

I just started reading the debate that led up to this thread, so I'm
*really* far behind. I'm like a child that's wandered into the middle of a
movie. That said, I had a similar debate with SuStel on this topic six
years ago, and I'd be far too selfless an egomaniac if I didn't bring it up
now.

I ended up just quitting the debate with SuStel. I felt like I was getting
more hostile with every e-mail, and I didn't like that feeling. SuStel, I'm
sorry about that. I should have been more direct rather than just cutting
off.

That said, I find SuStel's explanation... idiosyncratic. I think he's found
a way to explain it that reliably helps him make sense of these issues, but
is hard to explain to others. To me, it looks like he's putting syntax and
semantics into separate buckets, but then mixing them back together
haphazardly. I think it looks that way to me because I don't think there is
such a clear division between syntax and semantics--the whole point of
syntax is the convey meaning. It's easy for SuStel to keep track of which
one he's dealing with because he's already inside his head. The rest of us
have a harder time keeping track of it.

Below is my original explanation for the transitivity of {-moH} from
October 2009. I think it's a more reliable explanation because it relies on
syntax, which is accessible to outside observers, rather than semantics,
which is an intuitive internal experience. It also has the advantage of
being based in actual linguistic theory (from my typology class when I
tried to make linguistics my second major).

I realize the transitivity of {-moH} is only a small part of this debate,
but I think my explanation offers clear rules for analyzing how these verbs
work.

Submitted for your consideration...

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Once more unto the breach...
>
> Reading this debate reminds me of valency, the number of arguments a
> verb can have. There are two types of arguments: core arguments, such
> as the object and the subject, and peripheral arguments, which are
> usually marked by a preposition or affix. In Klingon, peripheral
> arguments are marked by -Daq, -vaD, and maybe -'e' (but that's a
> different debate).
>
> Some verbs are monovalent (one argument):
> 1. tuH yaS
> - The officer is ashamed.
>
> Other verbs are divalent (two arguments):
> 2. yaS qIp puq
> - The child hits the officer.
>
> English has some trivalent verbs:
> 3. The child gives the officer a weapon.
>
> Languages have valency changing constructions. Some constructions are
> valency reducing. Examples in Klingon are {-'egh} and {-chuq}. They
> make a divalent verb monovalent.
>
> 4. qIp'egh puq.
> - The child hits himself.
>
> 5. qIpchuq yaS puq je.
> - The officer and the child hit each other.
>
> Some constructions are valency increasing. They make a monovalent verb
> divalent. {-moH} is valency increasing. It seems to follow the cross
> linguistic pattern for a causative constuction:
>
> a. Causative applies to an underlying intransitive clause and forms a
> derived transitive.
> b. The argument in underlying S function (the causee) goes into O
> function in the causative.
> c. A new argument (the causer) is introduced, in A function.
> d. There is some explicit formal marking of the causative construction.
>
> (S being the subject of an intransitive, monovalent verb, O the object
> of a transitive, divalent verb, and A the subject of a transitive,
> divalent verb)
>
> 6. tuH yaS.
> - The officer is ashamed
>
> In sentence 6, {yas} is the S argument of {tuH}. Now let's apply {-moH}:
>
> 7. yaS tuHmoH puq.
> - The child shames the officer. The child causes the officer to be ashamed.
>
> We've applied the causative to an underlying intransitive to derive a
> transitive (condition a). The underlying S function {yaS} has become
> the O function of the causative (b). The causer has been introduced as
> a new argument in the A function (c). And the causative construction
> is explicitly marked (d).
>
> The place where we seem to be getting confused are when we try to
> apply {-moH} to a verb that's already divalent. Applying the causative
> construction to a transitive verb is rare cross-linguistically. A
> transitive verb already has A and O arguments; in sentence 8, {wo'rIv}
> is the A argument and {quHDaj} is the O argument:
>
> 8. quHDaj qaw wo'rIv.
> - Worf remembers his heritage.
>
> Applying the causative increases the valency by one. So what do we do
> with the original A and O arguments? There are five possibilities:
>
> (i) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is specially marked,
> and the original O remains the O.
> (ii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is also marked as
> the A argument in the same way as the new A, and the original O
> remains the O.
> (iii) New causer becomes the new A, the original A is marked as the O,
> and the original O is also marked as the O.
> (iv) New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes the new O,
> and the original O becomes a peripheral (non-core) argument.
> (v) New causer becomes the new A, the original A becomes a non-core
> argument, and the original O remains the O.
>
> In sentence 9, Klingon uses option (v).
>
> 9. wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj.
> - The sash causes Worf to remember his heritage.
>
> The new causer {Ha'quj} takes the A slot. {wo'rIv}, the original A,
> has become the non-core {wo'rIvvaD}. The original O {quHDaj} remains
> in the O slot.
>
> Now let's consider {ghojmoH}. It seems like it can also follow pattern (v):
>
> 10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
> - I teach science to the child (I cause the learning of science for the
> child).
>
> However, let's say we want to drop one of these arguments. Maybe I
> teach the child something, it doesn't matter what:
>
> 11. puq vIghojmoH.
> - I teach the child (I cause the child to learn).
>
> Or I teach science to somebody, it doesn't matter whom:
>
> 12. QeD vIghojmoH.
> - I teach science (I cause the learning of science).
>
> The problem with applying the causative to transitive verbs is that we
> end up with three arguments with only two core slots to put them in,
> so we have to resort to a non-core marking, {-vaD}, for one of them.
> But if one of those arguments is unstated, perhaps we can apply either
> pattern (iv), as in sentence 11, or pattern (v), as in sentence 12,
> with the implied {-vaD} argument left unspoken.
>
> bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/f2aa528a/attachment.html>