tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 28 13:53:23 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - Qu'vatlh! qep'a'Daq jIjaH vIneH!
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - Qu'vatlh! qep'a'Daq jIjaH vIneH!
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:40:32 -0400
From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>Okrand explained the use of the 1st and 2nd person object prefixes with
>{jatlh} a bit more on the MSN Expert Forum BBS back in June 6/97:
>
> Since the object of {jatlh} is that which is spoken, and since "you"
> or "I" or "we" cannot be spoken (and therefore cannot be the object
> of the verb), if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix indicating
> a first- or second-person object, that first or second person is the
> indirect object. Which is a not very elegant way of saying that
> {qajatlh} means "I speak to you" or, more literally, perhaps "I speak
> it to you," where "it" is a language or a speech or whatever...
> {tlhIngan Hol qajatlh} "I speak Klingon to you" ...
>
>If it's easier to accept, consider this an idiomatic usage. Note, however,
>that this is not done in the 3rd person. "Maltz speaks Klingon to you" has
>to be {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol jatlh matlh}.
Actually, what's relevant is the object, not the subject. You can use the
"prefix trick" with third person subjects, as long as the object is first or
second person.
tlhIngan Hol Dujatlh matlh.
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol jatlh matlh.
Maltz speaks Klingon to you. (Both Klingon sentences are valid.)
What you *can't* do is use a third person *object*.
ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh.
You speak Klingon to him.
This is the only way to say this. If you try to say {tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh},
reasoning that the prefix indicates a third person indirect object, you are
incorrect, and it will simply mean "You speak Klingon," losing the idea of
"to him."
There's also the question of what happens when there *is* no object, yet one
is possible. For instance, can one say {qanob} "I give it to you" without
having an explicit object, or does this literally mean "I give you," a
rather senseless utterance? Likewise, we have many instances of {ja'} with
the prefix indicating the person being spoken to, but does this mean that
the direct object of the verb is actually the person, or is this simply the
"prefix trick" being used on the verb?
The whole "prefix trick" raises as many questions as it answers.
SuStel
Stardate 98573.2