[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}

[Brent Kesler]

I've read your argument now, and I wish I had read it sooner. I'm glad I'm
catching up.

Before I answer some of your questions, I'm going to copy and paste my
examples for easy reference:

10. puqvaD QeD vIghojmoH.
11. puq vIghojmoH.
12. QeD vIghojmoH.

You're right that I don't explain how both sentences 11 and 12 follow from
10. The reason is that my argument is just a hypothesis. It could be wrong.
Both {puq vIghojmoH} and {QeD vIghojmoH} seem like acceptable sentences to
me, and this is an explanation of how both sentences *could* be acceptable.
But we don't have strong enough evidence to say that it's an actual rule.

However, I want to clarify a bit of my thinking. I'm don't think of
sentence 11 as deleting the thing being taught (QeD) and moving the person
being taught (puq) from the {-vaD} position to the direct object position.
I think all three sentences--10, 11, and 12--are separate applications of
{-moH} to the underlying sentence {QeD ghoj puq}.

We only need a clear rule when we have three arguments with a transitive
verb + {-moH}: previous A is marked as a non-core argument with {-vaD}, and
previous O remains the O. If we leave one of those arguments out, we can
put *either* the previous O or the previous A in the O slot. As long as we
use only one of them, we don't need any special syntactic marking to make
the meaning clear. (At least that's my hypothesis).

If that's the case, I don't need to delete {QeD} and promote {puqvaD} up to
{puq}, and I don't need a rule saying I can do that. If I say {QeD
vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom with Science
sitting at his desk while I give a lecture about poetry. If I say {puq
vIghojmoH}, it's obvious that I'm not standing in a classroom giving a
lecture about children--or at least, most people would assume I helping a
child learn something, since that's the usual meaning of a sentence like
that--and it's the usual meaning because that's what happens more often in
our real world experience. If we lived in the setting of "Children of Men",
maybe a lecture about children would be the "obvious" meaning of {puq
vIghojmoH}.

In other words, I think Klingon offers multiple strategies when applying
{-moH} to transitives, and speakers can choose the strategy that best fits
what they want to say. I think that fits the spirit of many of MO's
translations, but--again, and I can't stress this enough--this is just my
hypothesis, and it could be wrong.

I think part of this debate stems from the two different ways we look at
language and grammar (for any language). The first is that language is an
exercise in symbolic logic. Words have a clear symbolic meaning, and
grammars give clear rules for arranging those symbols to create new
meanings. The second is that languages are used by organic beings that
aren't really good at using symbolic logic, so they end up with a lot of
quirks that don't follow nice logical rules. Sometimes there's a hidden
logic to those quirks that even the speakers aren't aware of, but sometimes
they are just exceptions to the rules that need to be memorized. In other
words, language is as much an exercise in culture and history as it is in
symbolic logic.

I think a lot of people here prefer the symbolic logic approach for two
reasons: 1) a lot of us have an education or career that relies heavily on
symbolic logic (eg, computer programmers), so that's just the way we're
used to thinking; and 2) you can use symbolic logic to figure out things
you didn't know before. If you have to rely on culture or history, then you
can't figure it out on your own--someone has to tell you the answer. And
when you're learning Klingon, waiting for an answer can be agonizing slow.

bI'reng


On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM, André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com> wrote:

> bI'reng, I don't know if you have already read as far as my response to
> the issue, but it seems we have a very similar approach, but your
> explanation missed a crucial step between 10 and 11. Or rather, the
> explanation why this is actually possible. In your explanation, you simple
> delete the thing being taught, and then (syntactically) move the person
> being taught into that position. You didn't explain why this works, though.
> My explanation for that was the prefix trick (dative shift). Do you think
> that is what is happening there? With that, your sentences 11 and 12 follow
> automatically.
>
> About SuStel's answers: I confess that I got a bit confused, and I
> wouldn't go as far as to say that Klingon solves these things merely by
> semantics. It didn't convince me, but it didn't strike me as wrong in the
> way that lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's idea did (qamawqangbe'!).
>
> By the way, a few weeks ago someone said that there probably wouldn't be
> much to publish in a potential new issue of HolQeD, but I think there is.
> Debates like these, and conflicting theories could be turned into valid
> articles. And even if I disagree with lojmIt tI'wI'nuv's interpretation and
> conclusion, I think it could be a valid article on the same topic. Just
> like in other linguistic journals about natural languages. It could also be
> just one article presenting all three(?) ideas.
>
> - André
>
> 2015-11-23 22:42 GMT+01:00 Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/f8879ca6/attachment-0001.html>