[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

jatlhpu' De'vID:
> It's not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}, at least if we take TKD
> at its word.

vIjangpu' jIH, jIjatlh:
> That takes TKD 4.2.1 not only at its word, but also in isolation and without
> additional and appropriate context. What about {-moH}?

(poD vay')

jang je De'vID, jatlh:
> Aaaarrrrghhh. Of course, you're right. I knew that too.
> I had re-read the TKD section on {-'egh} and {-chuq} in an attempt to
> understand {quv HIja'chuqQo'} and in the process completely confused
> myself. This is one of those funny instances where you have a skill
> that you can apply without conscious effort, but when you try to do it
> consciously everything screws up. :-p

Fair enough! It happens to us all. ;)

taH:
> Very clearly, when {-moH} is used with {-'egh} or {-chuq}, an object
> is possible. We have lots of canon for this:
> {yItaD'eghmoH}
> {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}

Ooo, I like that last one - it's entirely on point. Thank you for raising it. I couldn't find an example of {-chuqmoH} in canon to see how it might work, but that gives a clear example of a bivalent verb plus {-chuq} plus {-moH}, plus a clear interpretation of what it actually means.

It also happens to accord with my hypothesis about how the causative works, in that it seems to fill available nominal slots of the causative sentence according to a hierarchy Agent(/Causer) > Patient > Instrument(/Causee). The non-causative form would be {muvchuq Qo'noS tuqmey}. So in the causative, topmost is the agent (or causer), {qeylIS}, so it takes the slot for the syntactic Subject. Next would be the patient (viz. of the non-causative verb) - but because of the suffix {-chuq}, there isn't an overt patient argument that can be placed as the syntactic Object. So the causee {Qo'noS tuqmey} gets placed into the empty syntactic Object slot instead.

taH:
> Because I was so focused on analysing {-chuq}, I interpreted
> {qawchuqmoH} as {qawmoH} + {-chuq} "cause-to-remember each other,
> remind each other" instead of {qawchuq} + {-moH} "cause to
> remember-each-other".

Yep, that latter is the interpretation I think works most naturally, and it fits with the paq'batlh example as well.

taH:
> Obviously, {qawchuqmoH} can be used like this:
> {qeylIS luqara' je vIqawchuqmoH} "I caused Kahless and Lukara to
> remember each other", "I reminded Kahless and Lukara of each other".
> {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} would mean something like "we remind our
> mission(s) of each other".

Well, something like that. I just realised earlier on, while composing my rather longer message in response to lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, that {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} would probably also be ungrammatical, but for another reason: it'd have to be {DIqawchuqmoH}, because in practice {-chuq} only works with a plural scope.

taH:
> That brings up another point about an unclear area of Klingon grammar,
> and that's in which order do you apply the meaning of the suffixes?
> Most of the time, it doesn't matter, but occasionally you get something
> where the meaning changes depending on whether the suffix applies
> (only) to the root verb, to everything before it. Is this actually settled?

Yah, that's still a volatile area in some aspects AFAIK. To answer that question in the general case is a little beyond me at the moment, and I'd have to spend a lot more time not only immersing myself in the canon we have for multiply-suffixed verbs, but singling out only those ones where suffix senses interact. {-moH} is obviously the big one in that regard because of its unusual behaviour in adding an actant to the underlying verb structure, and I do know we have two parallel examples of {-qangmoH} where it's the causee that is influenced by {-qang}, not the causer:

SuvqangmoHbej
"it certainly made him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7.18)

ghaH SuvqangmoHchu' molor
"Molor clearly made him willing to fight" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 7.20-21)

but again, I emphasise I'm not aiming to answer this in the general case, just proffering these two examples.

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151124/4332f977/attachment-0001.html>