tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 17 15:52:43 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: yIvem ej qa'vIn yIlargh

January 17, 1997 4:19 PM EST, jatlh SuSvaj:

> > > "Coffee grounds" vIjatlh vIneHDI, *qa'vIn tIr DI* vIjatlh.  qech nIv
> > >ghaj'a' vay'?
> > 
[jatlh mayq]
> > <qa'vIn tIr DI> can't be the object of the verb, so we say: <qa'vIn tIr
> DI>
> > jIjatlh.

> Huh?  I am not aware of any reason why <qa'vIn tIr DI> can't be used as the
> object of the sentence.  And the rest of your sentence doesn't make sense.

Well, as ~mark recently pointed out, we're not 100% about it, but from what we 
know, mayq's analysis seems to be right.  If you dig up every example of verbs 
of saying in canon (there's not a lot that is terribly useful, though), you'll 
find that the object, if it has one, of the verb seems to be the person 
*spoken* to, not the quotation.  For example, TKD p. 67:

qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'

I told you not to interrupt me.

Although this is described in the section for sentence-as-object, it does not 
seem to be one.  Since you can put the quotation on either end of the verb of 
saying's sentence, it seems unlikely to be the object.  Also, the "second" 
verb would be the {ja} verb, but it's got an aspect suffix on it, {-pu}, which 
is explicitly illegal for the second verb of a sentence-as-object sentence.  
So, it appears that the quotation is not the object of the sentence at all.

There's another proof for this in Power Klingon.  {lutlhob naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq 
majaHlaH'a'}  One might suggest that the quotation is the object of the 
sentence, but the English translation is "They ask him, ". . ."  This *could* 
be a case of a casual translation, but combined with the above, it's pretty 
convincing to me.

When using the verb {jatlh}, we have a little more information.

"I say, 'I am thirsty.'"
jI'oj jIjatlh
jIjatlh jI'oj

But in Power Klingon, we're treated to a sentence: "The prisoner says to the 
guard, 'I am thirsty."
{'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jI'oj}.  So, to indicate the person to whom someone is 
speaking, when the object of the verb doesn't seem to be the person being 
spoken to, is by using {-vaD}.  Actually, as charghwI' pointed out, the only 
object we've *ever* seen {jatlh} take is the name of a language.  I think that 
it may also be able to take a few other words, but this is only my opinion.  
For example, {mu' vIjatlh} "I say the word."  Note, that {mu'} is not a 
quotation!  It doesn't mean "I say 'word.'"  That would be {mu' jIjatlh} or 
{jIjatlh mu'}.

So, mayq is probably correct when he says

<qa'vIn tIr DI> jIjatlh

He could also say

jIjatlh <qa'vIn tIr DI>

Personally, I'd go for

jIjatlh <qa'vIn tIr>.  <DI> vIpoQbe'.

That's the interesting thing.  Here, I can only assume that the quotation, 
{DI}, is the object of this sentence.  It's not a verb of saying, it's 
intentionally treating {DI} as a noun.  I don't think this is wrong; we're 
just referring to a word.  If it were a quote, I'd probably say {<DI> jIjatlh 
'e' vIpoQbe'}.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97048.6

Back to archive top level