tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 27 20:06:22 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: The FAQ section 3.5 -- charghwI' !?!

I just spent half an hour forming a BRILLIANT (if I do say so myself) 
reply to this and my mailer ate it. Now, I'm in SUCH a mood. DaHjaj 
mumej bangwI' 'ej jIQuchbe'.

So, anyway, read this whole thing. It meanders toward an observation 
about how we have all been doing quotations completely wrong for years 
now. Ready?

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:17:08 -0800 Robert Darke 
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> And now for a question about a question {{:-) I guess this is directed at
> charghwI' seeing as it's his explanation.
> 
> FAQ Section 3.5 -- Indirect objects.
> 
> Now, indirect objects are explained on page 180 of my TKD. Fair enough. That
> I understand. What I've not seen before is the other form of indirect
> object (errr, unless I've REALLY misunderstood something in which case all
> of this may be complete wibble ...)

First of all, the closer one looks at direct and indirect objects, even 
in English, the slipperier it gets. Examples.

I go to work. Clearly indirect.
I go home. Clearly direct.
I go to Sam's house. Indirect.
I arrive at Sam's house. Indirect with a different preposition.
I visit Sam's house. Direct.

See?

So, I've made it a hobby to observe which verbs Okrand uses with 
objects, and what KIND of objects he uses with each verb.
 
> I'll assume past tense for my english.
> 
> 
> vIjatlh.  I said/spoke it.  Fine and dandy.
 
Not really. Unless you are saying {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh,} we have no 
justification for using {jatlh} with an object. The ONLY object Okrand 
has clearly used with that verb is a langauge, not a quotation.
 
> qajatlh.  I spoke (to) you.  Fair enough - examples are given in TKD where a
> verb's object is a pronoun (or implied through a prefix) and so the "to" is
> automatically inferred.
 
I'm not sure on this one. I'm strongly tempted to conclude that it is 
incorrect, though it could be argued to be correct. I'll be more 
specific below.
 
> {Qapla'} vIjatlh.  I said "Qapla'".  Hokey dokey.
 
This is definitely wrong. You are completely ignoring TKD 6.2.5 page 67. 
Look at the example:

qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'

Both equally state, "I told you not to interrupt me." Literally:

I told you, "Don't interrupt me."

The object of the verb "told" in English is the quotation "Don't 
interrupt me". The indirect object of the verb "told" in English is 
"you", since we assume you mean, "I told to you." I think.

Meanwhile, in Klingon, clearly we have two independent sentences jammed 
next to each other where the sequence doesn't matter because neither 
sentence is the object of the other sentence's verb. I know it is jammed 
into the "Sentence As Object" section of the grammar, but that section 
actually includes four different grammatical constructions. The first 
two ('e'} and {net} are similar. {neH} is different and quotations don't 
really belong under that heading at all, except that it involves two 
complete, linked sentences.

The object of {qaja'} is clearly "you", not the quotation. But then 
perhaps we want more canon. That comes from the audiocassette Power 
Klingon. Look at the jokes:

They asked him, "Can we get to the Great Hall from here?"
lutlhob naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?

Note that the quotation is definitely in the wrong place to be the 
object of the verb {tlhob}, and since the {lu-} prefix definitely 
indicates a singular, third person object, the English translation 
reveals that to be "him", the person addressed. This is consistent with 
the TKD example. So, for both {ja'} and {tlhob}, the object is the 
person addressed. The quotation is simply the sentence preceeding or 
following the statement that a quotation was said.

The guard answered, "If the bugs don't bite you."
jang 'avwI' nIchopbe'chugh ghewmey.

Note that the verb {jang} is apparently being used intransitively. It 
may mean, "The guard answered him...", but that's not what the English 
translation says. So, we have no clear example of {jang} being used 
transitively and even less that it can have a quotation as an object.

A prisoner says to the guard, "I am hungry."
'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jIghung.

Finally, we get {jatlh} used in a quotation (after so many years of 
using it in quotations ourselves). And it is being used intransitively, 
with the INDIRECT object being the person addressed. We have apparently 
been misusing {jatlh} almost every time we have ever used it.

The ONLY object Okrand has ever used for {jalth} is a langauge.

The guard replies, "I am also hungry."
jang 'avwI' jIghung je.

Again, {jang} used intrasitively.

The prisoner says, "I am thirsty."
jatlh qama' jI'oj.

{jalth} intransitive.

The guard replies, "I am also thirsty."
jang 'avwI' jI'oj je.

{jang} intransitive.

The prisoner says, "I am very tired."
jatlh qama' jIDoy'qu'.

Same.

The guard says, "I am not tired."
jatlh 'avwI' jIDoy'be'.

Same.

See? You've got it all wrong when it comes to quotations. We've ALL had 
it all wrong all along.

> SoHvaD {Qapla'} vIjatlh.  I said "Qapla'" for/to you.  Fine - TKD p180.
 
That should be:

<<Qapla'!>> SoHvaD jIjatlh.

or 

SoHvaD jIjatlh <<Qapla'!>>
 
> .. but this one ...
> 
> 
> {Qapla'} qajatlh.  I said "Qapla'" to you.  I spoke to you: Qapla' !??
 
This one could possibly be right, but it is most probably wrong as well. 
There is no canonical example of {jatlh} being used with the person 
addressed as the object. We have seen {tlhob} and {ja'} used in this way 
with the person addressed as the object, but what holds for one verb 
does not necessarily hold for another, as I showed earlier with "go to" 
and "visit". I now think of the verb {ghoS} similar to the English 
"visit" in that the direct object of it is the indirect object of most 
other verbs.
 
> .. hmmm ... I'd expect a little more along the lines of "I spoke to you and
> when I did I said {Qapla'}" or "When I spoke to you I said {Qapla'}" or at
> least SOMETHING more than the simple construction above.

Nope. That would be:

SoHvaD jIjatlhDI' jIjatlh <<Qapla'!>>

> I've just not had call to use verbs like this before. I don't see how one
> can just "stick a noun on the front" and automatically imply an indirect
> object. For me, the only "correct" way is as explained in the TKD addendum
> using {-vaD}. Perhaps I just need a little coaching on some wierd
> object/subject thing that I've messed up on somewhere ... ??
> 
> Not that I wouldn't accept the form as valid, of course, but I still have to
> ask "Where does this usage originate from ?" because if I didn't, I'd be
> falling down on my duties as a keen newbie learner {{:-)
 
If you get away from direct quotation and just look for examples of the 
use of a prefix pointing to an indirect object instead of at the object, 
then there is nothing in TKD to explain this, but there are canonical 
examples. Of course, that means I have to find one, right?

Umm. It took longer than I thought. Oh well. TKW, page 203:

I must show you my heart.
tIqwIj Sa'angnIS.

You would expect:

tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS.

But that's not what Okrand wrote. Get used to it.

It's a grammatical shorthand, like English's "He gave her the apple" 
being identical to "He gave the apple to her" even though the helper 
word is different in the two examples.

In Klingon, if you see an explicit direct object and the verb prefix 
disagrees with that object in person (1st person, 2nd person, 3rd 
person), then the prefix is pointing to the indirect object. Get used to 
it.

> jIghojlaHmeH HIDev, charghwI'.
 
qaDev. chotlha'laH'a'?

charghwI' 
 
> nI'jaj yInlIj, 'ej batlh bIHeghjaj.
> 
> 
> Qorbeq
> 
> 
> --
> 
> +------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
> |  http://www.parallel.demon.co.uk   |          "Still a newbie!"          |
> |---                              ---+---                               ---|
> |         Parallel Dimensions        |  pabwIj yIlughmoH jIjatlhHa'chugh   |
> +------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>

Back to archive top level