tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 03 02:57:48 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ditransitives (Re: mu'qaD - KLBC)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Ditransitives (Re: mu'qaD - KLBC)
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 95 10:57:40 BST
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9505291207.A4616-0100000@netcom19> ([email protected])
On Mon, 29 May 1995 16:26:40 -0400, "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]> said:
> Sun, 28 May 1995 ghItlh 'Iwvan:
>> Is {tuQmoH} being used as a ditransitive verb (one with
>> two objects) [...]?
> Klingon seems to have three ways to express a sentence with two objects.
> 1. One way is to place the (direct) object before the verb and use
> a verb prefix to indicate the other (indirect) object:
> vaghSaD DeQ HInob. (Give me 5000 credits.) (PK)
> ro'qegh'Iwchab HInob. (Give me the rokeg blood pie.) (PK)
[...]
> It is interesting to note that verb prefixes seems to be able to
> indicate either the direct object or indirect object of the verb as
> indicated by 1 & 3 above.
It is equally interesting that the only verb which behaves in this way
is {nob} `give'.
When I mentioned objects, I wasn't thinking of constituents bearing
the case suffix {-vaD}. From my reading of _tKD_ I had been left with
the impression that a Klingon clause may contain the following:
(1) A subject, with which the verb agrees in number and person. If
overtly expressed, it is located after the verb and marked by {-'e'}
(if focussed) or nothing (otherwise).
(2) An object, with which the verb also agrees in number and person.
If overtly expressed, it is located before the verb and marked by {-'e'}
(if focussed) or nothing (otherwise).
(3) Any number of oblique constituents, located before the verb (and
before the object, unless the latter is focussed) and marked by the
appropriate Type 5 case suffixes ({-Daq}, {-vaD}, {-vo'}, {-mo'}).
The {nob} examples in _PK_ deviate strongly from this. The verb in them
doesn't agree in person and number with the object (the bare noun phrase
located before it); rather, it agrees with an oblique constituent, which
would be marked by a Type 5 suffix, if it were present (eg {jIHvaD}).
Such a construction is not catered for by _tKD_; it could be a late
addition to the grammar, perhaps an unconscious anglicism, in view of
the superficial similarity between {chab HInob} and _give me the pie_.
Question (to be added to the `Ask Marc' list, I presume): Which other
verbs behave like {nob}? It is indeed conceivable that causatives
formed from transitive verb might belong to this category. (They do
in Arabic, for instance.)
--'Iwvan