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

[Alan Anderson]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:35 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> That’s what we’ve apparently figured out, without guidance. It’s messy, and
> the dictionary is just jam packed with verbs that already take direct
> objects that are now apparently supposed to have their definitions expanded
> and altered accordingly when we add {-moH} so they can take the direct
> object we already expect them to take, plus an indirect object posing as
> direct object, if the direct object isn’t mentioned, but it gets bumped back
> to being indirect object if the direct object IS mentioned.
>
> I’m sorry, but that’s not even hinted at in TKD, and Okrand has never
> explained this to be the case.

I believe {tuQmoH} "put on (clothes)" does hint at it. It didn't make
a lot of sense at first, but it aligns well with the {ghaHvaD quHDaj
qawmoH} example. Both also align with S27's {'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu'},
which doesn't use {-moH} but does resolve a different "ditransitivity"
question in the same way.

Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky's Transformational Grammar? The way
you describe the intricacies of {-moH} sounds a lot like his attempts
to define a rigorous, formal grammar for English. The truth is that
natural languages don't tend to be so strictly formulaic, and while
Klingon is not a natural language, it is an amazingly good simulation
of one.

If you want a simple all-encompassing theory of {-moH}, I think you
might be more comfortable with the idea that it actually doesn't
change the object of the root verb at all. Instead, what looks like a
subject becoming an object in TKD's examples is actually something
akin to the prefix trick with a mismatch between the presence of a
syntactical object and the verb's natural lack of object.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> There's no rule that says you can't put an object in front of Qong.

TKD 4.1.1. "Basic prefixes" doesn't state it as an actual rule, but it
does list only no-object prefixes as the ones that can go on {Qong},
and it then says such prefixes are also used when an object is
possible but not made explicit. I believe that means that an object is
*not* possible for {Qong}. I can accept that others can find
justification not to read it that way, though.

-- ghunchu'wI'