[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[David Holt]

ghItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv:

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

And thinking about it further I realize that I had not created a place in my categorization for "intransitive verbs".  Contrary to how I explained it earlier, I do not think it is stative verbs, but rather all verbs which can be used without an object.  In any case, here are the two rules as they sit in my mind:

1. When a verb has no object and you add {-moH}, the subject of the root becomes the object of the {-moH} verb.

2. When a verb has an object and you add {-moH}, the object of the root remains the object and the original subject of the root becomes the indirect object of the {-moH} verb using {-vaD}.  I accept the use of the prefix trick in place of the indirect object using {-vaD}.

This means that {wo'rIv vIghojmoH} is where I cause Worf to learn, but without any specific thing that he is learning, I just teach him.  To say, "I teach it to Worf," it would have to be, {wo'rIvvaD vIghojmoH.}  {HIQoymoH} can mean either, "Make me hear!" or, "Let me hear it!"

I admit that this does not necessarily account for any inconsistencies in canon and I am not trying to argue that it is necessarily correct.  You seemed to be asking if anyone had this sort of belief and so I raised my hand to show that one person, at least, did believe this.  I have not yet encountered an actual {-moH} verb in use where I was not able to figure it out with the above assumptions, though I admit it's possible that I have allowed additional flexibility and ignored the inconsistency of an example that works differently than I have explained above.

I have been following this discussion with interest and would welcome arguments specifically pointing out the weaknesses of this understanding.

> 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.

I don't see it as a difference between the nouns, but rather a difference between the verbs.  Since {tuj} cannot even take an object, little thought needs to go into figuring out where the object of {tujmoH} plays into the root sentence.  Since {ghoj} can take an object, but doesn't have to, a full analysis is a little more complicated (but still pretty straightforward once you get used to it, like most of the grammar).  If Worf is presented as an indirect object then there must be an object whether stated or not and there is no confusion where Worf's place was in the root sentence.  If Worf is not marked as the indirect object, then he must be the object and if the prefix doesn't match, then it must indicate the indirect object.  Still allowing us to figure out where each goes in the root sentence.

janSIy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151124/92fbf7cc/attachment.html>