tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 09:49:01 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: taghwI' jIH

sangqar ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

> That {ja'} takes a person as its object is supposition by Will Martin.
> Okrand does not confirm this in the above-quoted passage.  Okrand simply
> rephrases Martin's last phrase, "the thing you say."
> 
> There are a lot of uses of {ja'} in canon, and not one of them provides an
> unambiguous demonstration of the correct object of the word.
> 
> I am of the opinion that {ja'} was invented for Kruge's line in Star Trek
> III, "Report status!"  If this is the case, {ja'} could refer to something
> other than a person as its object (in this case, {Dotlh} "status"), and
> whenever we see {ja'} in canon using a prefix that indicates a person as the
> object, what is really happening is that the prefix trick is rearing its
> ambiguity-causing head.

Can the prefix trick be used with {-'egh} and {-chuq}?  Some canon examples:

yIja''egh  	tell yourself! (ja' tell)
peja''egh 	tell yourselves!

ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer.

The last one seems especially telling because the indicated direct object is third person, and 
third person indirect objects do not qualify for the prefix trick, so the indicated direct object 
cannot be an indirect object disguised by the prefix trick.  {ja'chuq} can only mean "They {ja'} 
each other"; it cannot mean "They {ja'} [something] to/for each other".

Unless there's further canon on the prefix trick of which I am unaware and which allows the 
prefix trick to be used with third-person indirect objects.

> SuStel

-Sangqar

Back to archive top level