tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 08:20:28 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: RE: KLBC: this message is too long

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 14:15:13 -0800 David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> November 28, 1996 3:07 PM, jatlh 'olIva':
...
> > Also, do you ask [something] to [someone]
> > (direct object : something, indirect object : someone)?
> > 
> > vay'Daq vay' vItlhob
> > 
> > Or do you ask [someone] about [something]
> > (direct object : someone, indirect object : something)?
> > 
> > vay'mo' vay' vItlhob
> 
> Not certain.  The only example of {tlhob} I'm aware of in canon is from Power 
> Klingon.  {lutlhob}.  The object *could* be either the quote or the person 
> being spoken to; the prefix doesn't help.  I believe it is the latter.  

I agree. The evidence this time is in the English translation, 
"They ask him..." If the third person singular object implied in 
{lutlhob} is referring to the quotation instead of the person, 
then there is no reference to the person at all in the Klingon, 
while there is such a reference in the English.

Meanwhile, additional evidence that the object of a typical verb 
of speech is the person addressed is in TKD with the use of 
{ja'}, which is only shown to have the person addressed as the
object. In {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}, this is not ambiguous. We would 
need some sort of evidence to lead us to believe that {tlhob} is 
unlike {ja'} and so far there have been no examples with either 
verb which clearly violate this interpretation of the appropriate
object for these verbs of speech.

{jatlh} is exceptional because we know that {tlhIngan Hol} can 
be its object. If {Hol} is its only allowed object, all canon 
could be interpreted as using it transitively with {Hol} or 
intransitively for quotations. Strong evidence for this exists 
in:

'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jIghung.

If the person addressed could be the direct object of {jatlh}, 
then why make the guard an indirect object? And if the quotation 
is the direct object, what gives with the word order?

This is also the evidence ~mark lacked in the FAQ for his 
interpretation that Klingons use direct quotation. If indirect 
quotation was allowed, he would have said, {'avwI'vaD jatlh 
qama' ghung.} This is unambiguous evidence of direct quotation. 
Meanwhile, because of the structure of Klingon grammar, indirect 
quotation would create really messy ambiguities which are not 
necessary if we stick to direct quotation.

I have not found any examples of Okrand stating a quotation in 
such a way that it is clear that the quotation is the object of 
the verb of speech. Meanwhile, all the examples he offers look a 
lot like the sentence of speech is squashed next to the 
quotation with no verb-object relationship whatsoever. They are 
just two adjacent, grammatically independent sentences. That's 
why the order of the two sentences is so unimportant.

> Since 
> you can reverse the order of teh quote and the sentence when using verbs of 
> saying, I don't think the quotation is the object of the sentence.  

Ummm. Yeah. I guess I should have read farther before 
commenting. We agree.

> I think 
> it's a seperate entity, which is simply jammed onto one end of the sentence.  
> Therefore, {lutlhob} would be "they ask him."  The object is the person being 
> asked.

Dachuq yab'a'Du'. 

Hey, wait a minute! "A farm obviously acts in the manner of 
a great mind."? Did Okrand do that on purpose? Has this been 
waiting for us all these years? Did other people notice this and 
I'm slow to catch on?
 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 96916.6

charghwI'
Stardate 96924.5

Back to archive top level