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

[SuStel]

On 4/22/2016 9:35 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
> No other suffix affects what class of noun can act as a direct object, 
> except for {-moH}, and one of those two expansions is explained in 
> TKD, with stative verbs, but the other one isn’t.

Really? *-chuq* and *-'egh* force the subject to be the object.***-wI'* 
and *-ghach* prevent the use of objects altogether, so far as we can tell.

Yes, *-moH* is unique, which is probably why it has a suffix class all 
to itself. Remember its definition, and try to forget all the baggage of 
ditransitivity and indirect objects that have been built up by ourselves 
over the years: "Adding this suffix to a verb indicates that the subject 
is causing a change of condition or causing a new condition to come into 
existence."

In other words, the role of the /subject/ changes when using *-moH.* The 
subject goes from being an agent or an experiencer to being a causer. 
But that's the /only/ thing that changes. Anything else that happens is 
determined purely by the rules set out in TKD and whether an object is a 
direct or indirect object.

Who's acting? Who's being acted upon? Who's receiving that action? Those 
are the /only/ determinants for what is a subject, direct object, and 
indirect object. /All/ of Okrand's examples follow this.

Don't build a *-moH* sentence by starting with an un*-moH*'d sentence 
and adding *-moH.* Start from scratch. If the subject is causing the 
action to happen, add *-moH.* If something is being acted upon, make it 
the direct object. If someone is receiving the action, make it the 
indirect object.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160422/c7c938de/attachment.html>