[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

qavuvHa’be’bej, ‘ach jIghoHDI’, jIbelHa’choH, ‘ej jIQuchtaH ‘e’ vImaS. vaj jIghoHtaHQo’. qen tlhoy jIghoH. jIghoHtaHmo’ jIQuchHa’. jIQuch vIneH, vaj jIghoHchoHQo’.

tlhoy pab vISaHpu’. DaH jIjatlh neH ‘e’ vImaS.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Nov 25, 2015, at 11:38 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> Your explanation of why {-vaD} is not necessary to disambiguate which kind
>> of object a person vs. a language or topic is the object of {ghojmoH} makes
>> a very weak case for how this could be generalized to other verbs,
>> especially those for whom either a person or a thing could function in
>> either role with no special relationship to the verb. We know that when a
>> thing is taught, that means it’s the topic being learned, and when a person
>> is taught, that means it is the person acquiring the learning, but most
>> verbs, like “hit” or “see” or, well most verbs that can take an object can
>> have the same noun in one sentence or another acting as either the subject
>> or the direct object, and so if you add {-moH}, and put only one noun in the
>> object position, you have no clue whether it was the subject or object
>> before the {-moH} was added to the verb.
> 
> I agree that it might be possible to write ambiguous sentences with
> some verbs and {-moH}, but I don't think it's as bad as you seem to
> think it is. Languages are ambiguous. There's already plenty of
> ambiguity in Klingon.
> 
> Likely, if someone said {SuvwI' qIpmoH ra'wI'} to you, you'd know
> based on context whether the {SuvwI'} hit someone else or if someone
> hit the {SuvwI'}.
> 
> It's like if I said to you {Suy qIpbogh SuvwI'}, it's likely you know
> whether I'm talking about the merchant whom the fighter hit, or the
> fighter who hit the merchant. But if you didn't, it's not the end of
> the world.
> 
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> All of our examples have had obviously different sets of nouns for subject
>> and object of the implied statement before being transmogrified by {-moH}.
>> Does this imply that only these verbs work with {-moH}? We don’t know.
> 
> That's overfitting the data, I think. We also have very few examples
> of some other suffixes, but we don't restrict their usage to only
> those contexts in which they've been used in canon.
> 
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> In your discussion about verbs where the original subject of the pre-{-moH}
>> statement is the only object, so you can drop the implied {-vaD}, does that
>> mean that explicitly stating that {-vaD} is wrong? Well, we don’t know.
> 
> As I've said in the other message, I think you've misunderstood
> bI'reng's analysis (he didn't say that you can drop an implied {-vaD}
> but that you can have an implied argument with {-vaD}).
> 
> But I don't understand why, assuming that {-vaD} can be implicit, you
> would think that explicitly stating it would be wrong?
> 
> We know the following is possible:
> {wo'rIvvaD quHDaj qawmoH Ha'quj}
> "the sash reminds Worf of his heritage"
> 
> Assuming you can write the following:
> {wo'rIv qawmoH Ha'quj}
> "the sash reminds Worf (of something unspecified)"
> 
> Why would you think that this is wrong?
> {wo'rIvvaD qawmoH Ha'quj}
> 
> Whatever else {-moH} might do, we know that {qawmoH Ha'quj} "the sash
> reminds" is correct Klingon, and we know that we can stick {wo'rIvvaD}
> in front of it to form a correct Klingon sentence. What's the basis
> for even considering that an explicit {-vaD} might be wrong?
> 
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> There’s less that we know about a general rule of verbs with objects that
>> then have {-moH} added than we do know about it. We can guess and have
>> theories all we like, but basically, we’re full of bluster without substance
>> until Okrand explains WTF he’s doing here.
> 
> Really? Based on the analyses posted so far, I think the grammar of
> {-moH} has really been clarified. There are a few edge cases which
> most of the arguments have been about, but it seems pretty clear to me
> how {-moH} would be used to say most things that most people would
> want to say. There are some edge cases with some ambiguity with some
> verbs when used with some nouns, but that happens in every language.
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol