tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 14:46:36 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: Okrand on /jatlh/

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:31:44 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] on behalf of Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > And some more discussion on the
> > slippage between indirect and direct objects, showing that they work more
> > or less like we expected.
> 
> Although with one additional point: that one needn't have an explicitly-stated 
> object in order to use a prefix to indicate indirect object.
> 
> Apparently, when Okrand says "object" in TKD, he means just that: any kind of 
> object, whether it is direct or indirect.  I'm beginning to think that perhaps 
> Klingons don't make that sort of dictinction until they encounter a sentence 
> with two objects, where the prefix cannot distinguish them.  Okrand did say 
> this rule applied to first- and second-person.  Perhaps an object is an object 
> is an object, and you can use it any way you please.

Interesting thought. Krankor agrees. I prefer to think of it as 
a kind of dynamic priority of objects. It goes something like 
this:

Indirect objects are like weaker objects than direct ones. In 
the purest grammatical form, the prefix always refers to the 
direct object and indirect objects generally preceed the direct 
object and use {-vaD}. Then again, if the direct object and 
indirect object are distinct from one another in person, the 
prefix can refer to the indirect object. It becomes embedded in 
the verb, so to speak. It is suggested by the difference between 
the person of the prefix and the person of the direct object.

Okrand further explains that this only works when the indirect 
object is first or second person. Any other indirect object 
causes this to be confusing. Meanwhile, it feels to me like a 
kind of intimate informality to use this construction. "Just 
between you and me, we know this isn't grammatically correct, 
but we perfectly understand each other. If anyone wants to tell 
us we are breaking rules, we can humor them and when they leave 
we can go back to using prefixes for first and second person 
indirect objects." That sort of thing.
 
Using {-moH} on an intransitive verb (the only way we saw it 
used for years) is apparently a similar construction. Once he 
used it on transitive verbs with explicit objects, the same kind 
of shoving indirect objects to use {-vaD} and pointing the 
prefix at the direct object flew into place.

So I DON'T see it as any object is an object. The heirarchy is 
very strict in terms of what works and what doesn't. The prefix 
can point to the indirect object only if it is first or second 
person and only if that disagrees with the person of the direct 
object (which it kinda has to, given the limits of indirect and 
direct objects), then it's not just a matter of any object is an 
object. And if there is no direct object, then obviously a first 
or second person indirect object disagrees with the person of 
the (null) direct object, right?

> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97500.1

charghwI'

Back to archive top level