tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 14 05:54:25 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:54:13 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Mar 13, 96 00:48:12 am
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> gulp! so far I thought, it was possible to look at it
> this way: verbs that need several 'objects' (whatever
> they may be called) can have each of it as "the" or
> the "direct" object in Klingon, that is, as the word
> which is referenced by the verb prefix and, if stated
> explicitly, precedes the verb immediately. All other
> "indirect objects", that is, noun phrases other than
> subject or "the" object, have a type 5 noun suffix
> (which may be zero, e.g. time stamps)...
I think you've made an intuitive leap here that may not have
substance behind it. A time stamp is not merely a noun with a
special kind of Type 5 suffix, which happens to be null. The
only "null" affix Okrand refers to in TKD is the third person
verbal prefix. All other missing affixes are most likely simply
missing affixes and not existing affixes represented by empty
space.
A time stamp is recognized by the combination of its position
in the sentence (at the front) and the recognizable
time-related meaning of the noun. There is no time stamp noun
suffix.
Similarly, there is no "empty" Type 5 noun suffix indicating
indirect object. Meanwhile, you should not feel bad about
confusion in this area. It is one of the more vague areas of
Klingon grammar.
Krankor often argued that in Klingon, an object is an object
whether it is direct or indirect. Okrand never differentiates
between direct or indirect. He just talks about objects. This
justified greetings like {qajatlh}, which Krankor likes to use.
While there are no rules or descriptions in TKD to back this
up, there are several canonical examples of this style use.
This means that we know that something LIKE Krankor's
explanation is in force here, but we only see the effects and
not the cause. Okrand reveals that prefixes are being used for
indirect objects, but he offers no explanation for the
grammatical reasoning behind it. It is natural for any
Klingonist to be confused by this. One can only hope that
somewhere on one of the upcoming CD sources, Okrand has updated
his descriptions of the grammar.
> and precede the
> object. Thus in
>
> jIHvaD paq yInob
>
> jIH is the "indirect object", paq is "the" object, while in
>
> paq (jIH) HInob
The problem here is that we have neither canon nor grammatical
description from Okrand justifying this word order. From the
examples we have been given, you could never explicitly express
the parenthetical {jIH} you have given.
> paq is the "indirect object" with an empty type 5 noun suffix
> and jIH is "the" object, referenced by HI- and usually left
> out, except for emphasis.
The problem here is that {jIH} is the indirect object and {paq}
is the direct object. That's why you can express {jIH} as
{jIHvaD}, which is a Type 5 suffix well applied to indirect
objects.
> In the case of "give" you can always tell, whether the word
> before ..nob is the recipient or the gift, by looking at the
> type five suffix it has: -vaD -> recipient, -0 or -'e' -> gift
>
> thus ghaHvaD yInob = give it to him = 'oH yInob
The problem is the ambiguity of {yI-}. Your first example can
easily be a global statement with no direct object: "Give to
him." The second example would almost certainly be considered
to have no indirect object. "Give it." I do not see these as
equivalent.
> what's wrong with that?
>
> HomDoq
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |