tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 03 08:29:30 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitives (Re: mu'qaD - KLBC)
Pardon that I'm not sifting my text in with the original post.
There was no natural way to do that. My words are followed by
the post to which I respond in its entirety.
This particular item has been debated before I joined this
list. I brought it up and discovered a momentum behind the
opinion which was different from my own for which I was quite
unprepared.
Krankor was particularly strong on this one. Apparently, since
very early times, users of TKD greeted each other with
{qajatlh}. Okrand has apparently approved of this in private
consultations.
>From what I can understand, it seems that Klingon doesn't
always differentiate between a direct object or an indirect
object. Most of the time, it does, and it is never wrong to
clearly differentiate between a direct object and an indirect
one, but the one construction where this most commonly makes
itself apparent is when there is noun in the position of
explicit object with no Type 5 suffix and it disagrees with the
person of the object implied by the verb's prefix. In this
case, the implied object is the indirect object while the
explicit noun is the direct object.
While this is most naturally true for the verb {nob}, this
construction is by no means limited to this one verb. While
there may be no justification in TKD for this, it is simply the
case, through convention among Klingon speakers and by apparent
agreement by Okrand.
According to [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
>
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |