[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[De'vID]

SuStel:
>> {ra'wI'} is the causer—the {-moH} suffix tells us that. Since the prefix
>> trick doesn't work for third-person objects, {SuvwI'} MUST be the agent.
>> {SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'} can only mean "the commander made the warrior hit
>> (someone)."

I'm not following your reasoning here.

Going by the example from S20:
{quHDaj qaw [wo'rIv]}
{[wo'rIvvaD] quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj}

If the prefix trick doesn't work for third-person objects, that would
prevent us from turning {wo'rIvvaD [quHDaj] qawmoH Ha'quj} into
{wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj}. Thus, if we saw the sentence {wo'rIv qawmoH
Ha'quj}, wouldn't it be the case that {wo'rIv} must be what you've
called the "theme", and not the agent?

OTOH we have:
{yIn Hegh je ghoj [ghaH]}
{[ghaHvaD] yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH [jIH]}

We would obviously interpret {ghaH vIghojmoH} as "I teach him" and not
"I teach about(?) him", "I teach him as a subject of study" (like I'm
giving a lecture on Kahless).

Compare the following:

{[Suy] qIp SuvwI'}
{SuvwI'vaD [Suy] qIpmoH ra'wI'}

{SuvwI' qIp [Suy]}
{[SuyvaD] SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}

If I saw {SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}, I'm not sure whether {SuvwI'} hit
someone or someone hit {SuvwI'}.

QeS 'utlh:
> This is further supported by S31, where we see exactly this kind of
> causative construction:
>
> Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey
> "[The howl] serves to warn the other dead" (S31)
>
> The object of {ghuH} is the patient: the thing prepared for (from the gloss
> "prepare for, be alerted to"). But the syntactic object in the S31 sentence,
> the object of {ghuHmoH}, is *not* the patient, the thing prepared for.
> Instead, it's the beneficiary, or causee, if I can use that term: those who
> are being alerted. It's what one would have expected in the {-vaD} role if
> one were to base the pattern on the {Ha'quj} sentence from S20.

Exactly. Why doesn't it work like in S20?

{[qen Heghbogh tlhIngan SuvwI'] ghuH Heghpu'bogh latlhpu'}
{Heghpu'bogh latlhpu'vaD [tlhIngan SuvwI'] ghuHmoH bey}

QeS 'utlh:
> However, this does raise the question of how you express "the commander
> caused (someone unspecified) to hit the warrior". Would it have to be
> periphrastic, as {vay'vaD SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'}?

{SuvwI' qIpmoHlu' ra'wI'} **ducks**

(btw the only canon example of {-moH} with {-lu'} I recall is
{chenmoHlu'meH Daq}, if you're looking for an example.)

-- 
De'vID