tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 28 11:51:14 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' !?!

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 08:05:04 -0800 Terry Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> charghwI' -
> 
>  qechmeylIjmo' Qomqu' yabwIj!
> 
> Let me summarize your argument to see if I understand it:
> 
> According to all canon sources, verbs of speaking appear to be 
> intransitive.  

Not quite. Both {ja'} and {tlhob} have had the person being addressed as 
object. {jatlh} was used intransitively in the same setting, where one 
would have expected the object to be the person addressed, that person 
was addressed as person-vaD. So {jath} and {jang} were used 
intransitively.

> Since they don't take objects, you must use the non-object 
> verb prefixes.  You indicate the one spoken to by  -vaD or by using a 
> subject-object prefix, except in this case the "object" is really an 
> indirect object.  

In English the object may be indirect, but it can simply be that this 
particular verb uses the person addressed as the direct object. Realize 
that the difference between a direct object and an indirect object is a 
preposition. Nothing is less consistent between languages than 
prepositional concepts.

Consider that in English, indirect objects use existing or 
implied prepositions while direct objects use a null 
preposition and have a more limited set of appropriate 
positions in the sentence. Indirect objects with implied 
prepositions have a similarly limited set of positions in 
the sentence, since in English there is a dance that occurs 
between word position and helper words.

Sam gave Jane an apple.
To Jane, Sam gave an apple.
Sam, to Jane, gave an apple.
Sam gave to Jane an apple.
Sam gave an apple to Jane.

See? With the right word order, Jane doesn't need a 
preposition. With the right preposition, Jane's position in 
the sentence is less limited. Meanwhile, you can think of 
the apple as being yet another kind of indirect object; a 
SPECIAL one that never uses a preposition and always has 
its position in the sentence limited. There is not all that 
much difference between a direct object and an indirect 
object beyond conventions applied specific to each verb.

That's why I used the verb "go" and "visit" to show how you 
"go to" a place (indirect object) or "visit" a place 
(direct object). The same object is direct or indirect 
depending on the verb, even though the MEANING is the same. 
Similarly "visit" could be described as "stay at", in which 
case a different preposition is used while the place is 
once again an indirect object.

> Quotations are not actually objects of the verbs, but 
> just related sentences, and you need context to interpret the relation.
> For example:
> 
>   SoHvaD jIjalth.  "ghobe'." 

This is the idea, though I probably would not punctuate it 
like that. Just to keep the connection between the two 
sentences, I'd drop the punctuation between them. 
Meanwhile, punctuation is the least documented written 
language convention for Klingon. We have enough of it in 
Okrandian canon to know that we can use it, but not enough 
to know how to punctuate quotations. We basically have to 
make it up ourselves. Lots of us prefer <<quote>> to 
"quote" because it doesn't become confusing with the 
glottal stop. Beyond that (and even including that) we 
don't have much agreement. 

> or
> 
>   qajatlh.  "ghobe'."     for "I say 'No' to you."
> 
> but not
>  * SoHvaD "ghobe'" vIjatlh. 
> 
> I have only one question.  You state that the only object used with 
> {jatlh} is {tlhIngan Hol}.  But what about {nuqjatlh}?  If {jatlh} is 
> truly intransitive, wouldn't you have to use {chay'}: {chay' bIjatlh}?

Remember that {nuqjatlh} is a word. It is not a pair of 
words. Perhaps eons ago, it was a pair of words, but now, 
it is an entity unto itself to be respected as such. Don't 
try to take it apart and think about it. Just accept it in 
its wholeness.
 
> -- ter'eS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level