[Tlhingan-hol] Because you mentioned it (Was: Expressing instrumentality)

[SuStel]

On 4/20/2016 10:25 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
> HoD HoH betleH vIra’bogh.
>
> The be’leH which I commanded killed the captain. In fact, the weapon
> killed the captain. I didn’t. But I was in control of the weapon when
> it killed him. That makes the instrumentality pretty clear, though it
> doesn’t imply the intentionality as well as {HoD vIHoHmeH betleH
> vIlo’}. Perhaps if I emphasize my role with {HoD HoH betleH vIra’bogh
> jIH}, that would recapture some of that, especially since it becomes
> appropriately ambiguous as to whether the betleH I commanded killed
> the captain, or whether I, who commanded the betleH killed the
> captain. This is one of those cases where you don’t have to
> disambiguate because it doesn’t really matter which way you see it.
> The betleH and I both killed the captain.
>
> Or consider a well placed {-ta’}, if it doesn’t offend some minute
> rule about perfective.

I wasn't going to say anything, but since you bring it up...

{HoD HoH betleH vIra'bogh} says "bat'leth which I command kills 
captain." I didn't command the bat'leth just once; I command it either 
in general or throughout this episode. I didn't kill a captain and 
that's the end of the story; the bat'leth I command might kill captains 
in general, or it may be intended for killing a particular captain. 
That's what this sentence says.

If I command the bat'leth in general or throughout this fight, and I 
kill the captain and that's the end of the captain, then {HoD HoHpu' 
betleH vIra'bogh} or {HoD HoHta' betleH vIra'bogh} or even {HoD HoH 
rIntaH betleH vIra'bogh}. You NEED that perfective in there to indicate 
that the action is a completed one. Otherwise it is explicitly NOT a 
completed action.

And if I picked up a bat'leth for the first time, take one swing at a 
captain, kill him right there, and never command that bat'leth again, 
you'll want {HoD HoHpu' betleH vIra'pu'bogh}, or whichever combination 
of perfective suffixes are appropriate for the situation.

> HoDvaD betleHwIj vIHoHmoH.
>
> Note that according to current interpretations of the ditransitivity
> of {-moH}, this does not imply that I killed someone else for the
> benefit of the captain. It rather directly suggests that the captain
> is the object of the transitive verb {HoH}, while {betleHwIj} is the
> subject, and the implied {jIH} is the agent of causation (my term).

Sticking {-vaD} on a "ditransitive verb" doesn't strip {-vaD} of its 
meaning and make it an object. {-vaD} retains its benefactive sense, 
though it may not mean "for the benefit of." It can also mean "given 
to." Here, {betleHwIj} is not a subject, it is an object, and a direct 
object. {jIH} is the elided subject, AS WELL as the causer. {HoDvaD} is 
an indirect object.

It's a clumsy expression. While I can't quite condemn it, I have a 
strong feeling that it doesn't quite say what you mean. I think the 
problem is somewhere in the meaning of {-vaD}. Strictly speaking, it 
satisfies the needs of this kind of construction: I (the subject) cause 
killing to happen; the action is performed on (direct object) the 
bat'leth; the action is received by (indirect object) the captain.

> It’s a language, not a code.

Please stop saying that. It's insulting to anyone who's honestly trying 
to learn the language. The only people who treat Klingon like a code are 
people who look up English-to-Klingon word-by-word and people who use 
Bingon—and none of them frequent this list. Kyle's original question was 
thoughtful and worthwhile, and he obviously wasn't just looking for the 
codeword for "with."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name