tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 12 00:03:18 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tagh'a jIlIH'egh
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:34:15 -0500, "David Trimboli"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: "Philip Newton" <[email protected]>
> > With {ja'} it makes sense, I suppose, since the object is
> > typically the person you communicate with, rather than the words
> > spoken.
>
> There are exactly zero examples of a non-ambiguous use of /ja'/ in
> Okrand's Klingon. For instance, /qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'/ "I told you
> not to interrupt me" from TKD could be an example of the dreaded
> prefix trick, where the beneficiary of the verb /ja'/ is elided, and
> represented by the verb prefix as if it were an object. Okrand has
> never given /ja'/ an explicit object.
Hm. I thought the famous interview would answer that question, but I
read:
: WM: And a typical direct object of {ja'} would be the person
: addressed and a typical object of the verb {jatlh} would be the
: thing you say.
:
: MO: The speech event.
:
: WM: I like that term.
:
: MO: Including a direct quote. I'm telling a story. He "blah, blah,
: blah" {jatlh}.
So charghwI'(?) proposes that {ja'} takes the person addressed as a
direct object, but Marc Okrand doesn't comment on that at all. So maybe
it means that he doesn't disagree, but he doesn't say anything
explicitly about the object of {ja'} in that bit, only about the object
of {jatlh}.
> > Though I ended up procrastinating joining this list for so long
> > that I wound up with quite a bit of Klingon under my belt when I
> > did start posting.
>
> lumbe'nIS tlhInganna'!
bIlughbej. tlhInganna' quv law' tera'ngan quv puS.
Philip
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}