tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 11 16:53:10 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC-double-object verbs

According to Bachman, Blaine:
> 
> 
> >I feel silly asking this question because I think I should be able to
> >find/figure out the answer, but so far I've come up blank.  How does
> >Klingon handle double-object verbs, such as "give?"  I can't for the life
> >of me come up with a way to say, for example, "I give him the book."  Any
> >insight would be appreciated... and I hope this isn't one we're waiting
> >on MO to figure out, but if it is, I need to know that, too.  qatlho'.
> 
> >Teresa Wells
> >Still no tlhIngan name, still at ASU.
> 
> I'll take a stab...

Please note, when the subject says "KLBC" ghunchu'wI' really
should get first stab at it. I looked ahead and saw that he had
not answered this yet, so I speak quickly in his defense and in
an effort at spin control (having been a Beginner's Grammarian,
myself, for some time), I'll offer this correction and suggest
that this has been happening often enough lately that
ghunchu'wI' might get understandably testy if we don't start
respecting the BG's role a little better...

> ghaHDaq paq vInob

Close, but there is a better way and an alternative way which
ghunchu'wI' does not like, but Okrand has used repeatedly.
First, the better way:

ghaHvaD paq vInob.

I don't merely give the book to the location where he is
standing. I give it for his benefit. The giving of the book is
intended to benefit the recipient. This is a little alien to
English grammar, but then, Klingon is often intentionally a bit
alien.

Next, if the person of the recipient (what English grammar
refers to as the "indirect object") is different from the
person of the direct object, think of it as perhaps a bit less
formal (and confusing) to say something like:

paq HInob.

At first glance, this looks like a mistake. {HI-} is the
imperative, meaning the subject is "you" and the object is
"me", but the object is clearly the book. Meanwhile, this is
how you say, "Give me the book," rather than how to say "Give
the book to me".

In English, "Give me the book," means the same thing as "Give
the book to me." In Klingon, according to examples written by
Okrand, {paq HInob,} means the same thing as {jIHvaD paq
yInob.} It definitely looks different and strange, but then the
same could be said for "Give me the book."

Meanwhile, besides looking weird, this particular alternate
grammatical construction does not work at all when the person
of the direct and indirect object are the same, as in your
example, "I give him the book." The disagreement of the verb's
prefix with its object is the thing that wakes you up to know
the difference between {jIHvaD paq yInob,} and {paq HInob.}
Meanwhile, there is no difference between {paq vInob,} and {paq
vInob,} and if the indirect object is explicit (it is a noun
instead of just something or someone indicated by the verb's
prefix), then there is no way to fit that explicit object in
this shorthand format.

If this seems confusing, just use {-vaD} and don't worry about
it. It works in more cases and more people will understand it.

>  -Blaine "mangHom neH jIH"

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level