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

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> And the ever popular ditransitive, which I hate:
> 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).

It suggests no such thing. In {HoDvaD betleHwIj vIHoHmoH}, {betleHwIj} remains the object, and so the sentence as written means "I cause the captain to kill my bat'leth" - grammatical, but nonsensical on its face.

{betleHwIjvaD HoD vIHoHmoH} is the only form of the construction that could mean "I make my bat'leth kill the captain". Remember that when {-moH} is used on a transitive verb with an explicit object, it demotes what would be the *subject* of the non-causative form of the verb to indirect object position. The object remains as it is, in the same syntactic role. Viz:

ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH
"it reminds him of his heritage" (S20)

where the non-causative form would be {quHDaj qaw} "he remembers his heritage".

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160421/8b44cf4c/attachment.html>