tlhIngan Hol: A Living Language?

[tlhoy' chenmoHwI']

If I would say:
puqloDwI'vaD cha'rutlh lIgh vIghojmoH
with
puqloDwI'vaD - to my son
lIgh   - to ride
vIghojmoH - I cause him/her/it to learn

isnt "my son" the direct object of the verb? The bicycle is not being taught. Wouldnt it be more appropriate to write

cha'rutlh lIghlaHmeH puqloDwI' vIghojmoH
lIghlaHmeH - in order that he can ride it

(I'm assuming you were quoting QoghtlhIH'u' and then replying)

Using verbs with objects with -moH is one of the least understood topics in Klingon grammar, and much verbal combat has occured over it in the KLI.  It appears that QoghtlhIH'u' is in my camp on this.  I believe that verbs with an object keep the same object when -moH is added, that a causative verb is formed, and that the causee is given the noun suffix -vaD. I don't want to rehash the arguments here, but you can check my homepage for my reasoning.

The original verb ghoj 'to learn' appears to have as its object the thing learnt: tlhIngan Hol vIghoj 'I learn Klingon.'  According to my belief, it retains the same object when it become a causative: jiHvaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH 'You teach (literally "cause to learn") Klingon to me'.  I would phrase learning a behavior a little differently than QoghtlhIH'u' does, and say cha'rutlh lIghmeH mIw ghoj puqloDwI' 'My son is learning how to ride (or "the method for riding") a bicycle', for which the causative would naturally be puqloDwI'vaD cha'rutlh lIghmeH mIw vIghojmoH.

Its definitely a good question. -moH seems to reverse the usual concept of direct and indirect object. Perhaps one could say that -ghojmoH that the subject is causing an "object" to become a secondary subject. Has MO passed any comment on this?

[ter'eS]

Its definitely a good question. -moH seems to reverse the usual concept of direct and indirect object. Perhaps one could say that -ghojmoH that the subject is causing an "object" to become a secondary subject. Has MO passed any comment on this?

That is not how I would interpret it.  MO has never commented on this specific issue except to say ghojmoH should be understood as ghoj+moH and not as a separate word.

[tlhoy' chenmoHwI']

Its definitely a good question. -moH seems to reverse the usual concept of direct and indirect object. Perhaps one could say that -ghojmoH that the subject is causing an "object" to become a secondary subject. Has MO passed any comment on this?

That is not how I would interpret it.  MO has never commented on this specific issue except to say ghojmoH should be understood as ghoj+moH and not as a separate word.

Am I right in thinking that,
puqloDwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH should be translated as "I cause klingon to be learnt by my son"  i.e. moH=cause to be/become?

Klingon is the direct object and my son the indirekt object?

[ter'eS]

That's my understanding of it. Although I would just say that "my son" is the beneficiary; 'indirect object' isn't an official category in Klingon.  To be very pedantic, you could say that the English indirect object is one of the parts of speech that nouns with the suffix -vaD sometimes correspond to.

[tlhoy' chenmoHwI']

That's my understanding of it. Although I would just say that "my son" is the beneficiary; 'indirect object' isn't an official category in Klingon.  To be very pedantic, you could say that the English indirect object is one of the parts of speech that nouns with the suffix -vaD sometimes correspond to.

I use the terms indirect and direct object because I learnt them whilst learning German. In the case of "I teach my son Klingon", son is the indirekt object and Klingon the direct as in tlhIngan Hol.
The explaination of -moH in the TKD is very superificial. Have you found other suffixes that have caused controversy amongst you grammarians?

[Qunchuy]

Have you found other suffixes that have caused controversy amongst you grammarians?

There's some disagreement about what it means to use the perfective, -pu' and -ta', on verbs of quality.  Basically, does tujpu' imply that it isn't hot anymore?

[QoghtlhIH'u']

puqloDwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH should be translated as "I cause klingon to be learnt by my son"  i.e. moH=cause to be/become?

No, it should be translated as:
You cause the Klingon language to be learned by my son. Da- you - him/her/it

There's some disagreement about what it means to use the perfective, -pu' and -ta', on verbs of quality.  Basically, does tujpu' imply that it isn't hot anymore?   

I guess it is possible to concoct weird, not very meaningful, funny or poetic combinations in any language without violating basic grammar.
A verb of quality without -moH may be meaningless with -pu'
QuQ tujmoHta' jonpIn - the engineer is done heating the engine 

but:
'IHpu' be'nalDaj his wife is done being beautiful 

[tlhoy' chenmoHwI']

puqloDwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH should be translated as "I cause klingon to be learnt by my son"  i.e. moH=cause to be/become?

No, it should be translated as:
You cause the Klingon language to be learned by my son. Da- you - him/her/it

There's some disagreement about what it means to use the perfective, -pu' and -ta', on verbs of quality.  Basically, does tujpu' imply that it isn't hot anymore?   

I guess it is possible to concoct weird, not very meaningful, funny or poetic combinations in any language without violating basic grammar.
A verb of quality without -moH may be meaningless with -pu'
QuQ tujmoHta' jonpIn - the engineer is done heating the engine 

but:
'IHpu' be'nalDaj his wife is done being beautiful 

unless I am mistaken -ta' requires intent. The above mentioned engineer may have caused the engine to heat up without wanting to. (too much Romulan ale on Duty perhaps)

Da- is of course you/it....too much Bloodwine off duty