tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 28 18:27:11 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' !?!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:10:23 -0800
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>

>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.

Actually, this one is something of a Red Herring.  Holtej, check me, but I
believe that in this construction "home" is considered (get this:) an
adverb, not a direct object.  It's not a "thing that is gone" (You can't
say "I went home; home was gone by me.") it's the way the going happened
(short for "homeward" I guess).  Doesn't really affect your point, anyway.

Another Red Herring: usually in English, an indirect object is the object
of an *implied* preposition, not an actually present one.  "I gave the ball
to Mary" has "ball" as the Direct Object and "Mary" as the object of the
preposition "to", >not< the Indirect Object.  The IO comes in "I gave Mary
the ball," where the preposition "to" is implied but not stated.  But we
knew what you meant.

>> 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.

Is there no canon?  I know there is for related words (qara'pu'...) and
related constructions ("jatlh qama'...")... I take it you mean no canon for
"jatlh" with the audience explicitly stated as the object (prefixwise).

>> {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.

Definitely wrong?  I think you overstate.  It's how we've done it a long
time... though it is true that SuStel's arguments are compelling.  But we
weren't complete bozos all along, I think.  After all, "ro'qegh'Iwchab
HInob" is canon, and seems to equate to "jIHvaD ro'qegh'Iwchab yInob", with
the IO being stated as the DO in the verb-prefix and the true DO just
hanging there.  It could be argued that this is the same thing, with the
quotation being the true DO and the addressee the "false" DO: an IO which
has become assimilated into a prefix object.  The only difference is the
freedom of position of the quotation, before or after.  Granted, that makes
it something of a stretch (that's why I said SuStel's arguments were
"compelling"; they are), but "definitely wrong" sounds a little strong to
me.

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

BTW, don't get me wrong; I think I agree with you when you say this.

>> {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.

Oowwwww..  Good point.

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBMnVrY8ppGeTJXWZ9AQEbkgMAhpHqa4+hkfEuezK7ZzEkWd/htY0j02KP
SNA3vKYEv2/+0IZjz3u5SWMUbC5b3XM6zS470f93x/0kjqFkDWsYwoavv8IdQrwD
96qU3x0lEjizMbOntvwCc+kL/FOoIwev
=ckMT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level