tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 28 07:50:37 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' !?!


ghunchu'wI',


I had a feeling that other prominent list members might get involved with
this ... {{:-)


> >Yikes. I had always kind of assumed that all verbs worked alike. Well, okay,
> >not ALL verbs. Transitive and intransitive are obviously different.
...
> >Now you're telling me that I've got to be careful about what verb I'm using
> >with what subject and object .. ??
> 
> {*vIQuch} is semantically invalid.  It doesn't have a reasonable meaning.


Quite understandable.


> A different problem occurs with words like {tlhuH}


Also, fair enough.

muD vItlhuH. I breathe the atmosphere. Acceptable ?
*qatlhuH. I breath you. Eugh.

I can see that certain verbs (even those that AREN'T intransitive) need
careful usage of prefixes otherwise the translation won't make sense. That
kind of thing is just common-sense though. My problem occurs when saying
things that /should/ actually make sense.

>From a beginners point of view things are difficult enough without having to
contend with unwritten rules of what you can and can't say because Okrand
hasn't actually said the same thing yet ...


> re: {jatlh} - As charghwI' pointed out, the only unambiguous examples that
> we have of its use with an object-indicating prefix say the one being
> spoken to is its object.


Now we are in the realm of "verbs of saying and their correct usage" rather
than "using indirect objects" aren't we.

>From what I read, charghwI' actually said that there are NO examples of
{jatlh} with ANY object other than a language. {ja'} and {tlhob} are used
with shorthand indirect-objects {qaja' or qatlhob} but {jatlh} has only ever
been used with null-object prefixes. Did I read you right, charghwI' ?


> >I guess what I'm saying is do we have to wait for Okrand to have used a verb
> >in the form that we would like to use it before it becomes "correct" ?
> 
> For it to be unambiguously and uncontroversially correct, yes we do.


I wouldn't have thought that {jatlh} was as controversial as it appears to
be. Oh well. I guess that's Okrand's fault for not giving us more examples
of a very heavily-used word. {{:-)


> >Okay then -- what if I didn't WANT a direct object ? I'm not saying anything
> >to anyone specific, I'm just stating
> >
> >I said "Qapla'".
> 
> {Qapla' jIjatlh} is apparently the correct way to say this.  We have
> been doing it wrong for years, it seems.


Nice to have made a difference {{:-)

After all this tuition I expect to be able to admonish anyone I see using
{jatlh} {ja'} or {tlhob} incorrectly. {{;-)


> >"I said Qapla'" has an implied speakee anyhow, doesn't it .. ? I can't
> >really be speaking to NOONE can I ?
> 
> You can certainly disregard the recipient of your speaking when you
> are relating the event.


You may disregard it, yes, but there is still a recipient in there
somewhere. It was at this point that I realised that no matter what you are
"saying" there is always a recipient, even if it is not important who it
specifically is and you don't actually mention it.

So, my thinking was going along the lines of "ahah .. a rationalisation for
why verbs of saying are treated differently -- they always have an indirect
object even if you don't mention it". Am I right ? They ALWAYS have an
indirect object and so that should be the main object of the verb ??

Well, perhaps not, seeing what charghwI' said about {jatlh} and it's
currently available canon.

Even with {Qapla' jIja'pu'} there is an implied "to someone/something" isn't
there ? TKD page 33 at the bottom it talks about null-object prefixes. "This
set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but unknown or
vague".

Ahah.

I am happier now.

To summarise my new understanding ...

Verbs of saying work like "I speak/tell/say TO someone" and if you need to
actually quote the spoken item it is done as per TKD p67 and simply added at
either end of the phrase with the exception of {jatlh} which takes no object
whatever (except a language) and needs the formal {-vaD} construction to
make it work "to" someone.


{qaja'pu'}. I told you.

or

{SoHvaD jIja'pu'}. I told you.


{qatlhobpu'}. I asked you.

or

{SoHvaD jItlhobpu'}. I asked you.


{SoHvaD jIjatlh}. I spoke to you.


qar'a'?


> >Would {tlhIHvaD tIqwIj vI'angnIS} be wrong then ? Or is it just another
> >way of writing the same thing ?
> 
> Both are correct.  The longer one follows the rules given in TKD,
> while the shorter one follows rules not written down anywhere official


I can go along with that, especially as it's difficult enough being a
relatively new speaker without the complications of "shorthand klingon" !

However, even if I always use {-vaD} I can still go way wrong now, can't I
because by using {-vaD} I'm leaving the object of the verbs-of-saying
completely open and so I might accidentally misuse it. Hmph.


{"something" qaja'pu'}  or  {qaja'pu' "something".}

I told you something.  <shorthand>


{"something" SoHvaD jIja'pu'}  or  {SoHvaD jIja'pu' "something"}

I told you something.  <full form>



{*SoHvaD "something" vIja'pu'*}

I told you something.  <utterly illegal>


So if I wanted to "say" rather than "tell" (because "tell" has too much of a
deliberate "reporting" overtone to it) I've got to use


{"something" SoHvaD jIjatlhpu'}  or  {SoHvaD jIjatlhpu' "something"}.

I said something to you.


if only because Okrand hasn't used the shorthand-indirect-object-form of
{jatlh} anywhere (yet ..)

qar'a' ?



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