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

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I’ll explain why I hate this construction and I’ll work very hard to make this short.

All of the following six translations are “correct” according to our current understanding of the language:

1. My room is clean. {Say’ pa’wIj.}

2. I clean my room. {pa’wIj vISay’moH}. I cause my room to be clean.

3. My sister learns Klingon language. {tlhIngan Hol ghoj be’nI’wI’.}

4. I teach my sister. {be’nI’wI’ vIghojmoH.} I cause my sister to learn.

5. I teach the Klingon language. {tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.} Houston, we have a problem. I don’t cause the Klingon language to learn, so the suffix {-moH} is doing something fundamentally different here than it was in examples 2 or 4. Nothing in TKD explains this. Nothing from Okrand since then has explained this.

6. I teach my sister Klingon language. {be’nI’wI’vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.} So, if this is correct, one is drawn toward changing example 2 to {pa’wIjvaD jISay’moH}, and the fourth example should be {be’nI’wI’vaD jIghojmoH}. If that were the case, then everything would make sense, but we’ve never seen anything close to that in canon.

So, we’re forced to assume that either there are grammatical rules we are clueless about that Okrand has never explained, or maybe example 2 really SHOULD be {pa’wIjvaD jISay’moH} and example 4 really SHOULD be {be’nI’wI’vaD jIghojmoH} and, hey, that would just be too pedantic, so we’ll just shorten them to {pa’wIj vISay’moH} and {be’nI’wI’ vIghojmoH} and just never explain why. And, no, it’s not okay to just use a noun you would normally add {-vaD} to without {-vaD} and treat it like a direct object when it isn’t in any setting except for verbs with {-moH}, when you HAVE to do this EVERY TIME.

So, I hate it.

It’s my right to hate it. You can try to tell me that I shouldn't hate it, but you won’t be very effective when you do, because I will still hate it.

If Okrand expects us to use {-moH} effectively, he should come forward and explain it, in detail, because he has radically changed the way it works from the way he described it in TKD. There is no other segment of grammar that he has handled worse. He’s had time. It just doesn’t bother him to leave this dangling. But it bothers me.

I’m not particularly important, nor are my opinions, but I’m cursed to have opinions anyway, and this one screams at me far more often than it screams at you, so if it annoys you, just imagine what it’s doing to me.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Apr 21, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> > This is why I hate this construction. You, SuStel, and I don’t seem to be
> > able to agree on what it means,
> 
> Understandable. I suppose the thing I find really difficult about your hatred of the construction, and your desire to avoid it absent further clarification, is that I honestly don't see how the canon could indicate that any other interpretation is possible, or how another interpretation could be cleanly reconciled with the S20 example.
> 
> taH:
> > So, help me out here. If I want to say “Krankor taught Seqram the Klingon
> > language,” should I say, {tlhIngan HolvaD Seqram ghojmoHta' Qanqor} or
> > should I say, {SeqramvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoHta’ HoD Qanqor.}
> 
> I think it should be the latter: {SeqramvaD tlhIngan Hol ghojmoHta' HoD Qanqor}. It parallels the S20 example really neatly: the agent causing the learning/remembering is the subject, the topic learned/remembered is the direct object, and the person learning/remembering is the indirect object.
> 
> QeS 'utlh
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160421/c8f9b76a/attachment-0001.html>