tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 03 16:30:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: jajlo'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: jajlo'
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 97 05:31:59 UT
jatlh Qov:
> The only meaning tell and report have in common is transitive, with
> the report as the object.
But suppose that Okrand really *was* considering the transitivity of {ja'}
when he wrote this. If you assume for a moment that the object of {ja'} must
be the person spoken to, then "tell" is the best translation for the
transitive use, and "report" is the best intransitive use. He added both to
cover the various uses. {jIja'} would be "I report," while {qaja'} is "I tell
you." You wouldn't say "I tell" or "I report you" in English for this
meaning. It's possible that Okrand was simply accommodating this.
> I think the 'report recipient as object' use is one of those
> 'indirect object as object' uses that Marc keeps dropping on us, like
> qanob, and that the 'normal' meaning is the one tell and report have
> in common.
I've often considered this, but the fact remains that we've had lots and lots
of uses of {ja'}, and not one has had an object other than the person being
spoken to. Also, every other use of this indirect object cheating has done it
around another object. Unless you're willing to accept that {HInob} by itself
and without context means "give to me," and {Sa'ang} means "I reveal to all of
you" (which is not a totally crazy idea), I don't see how this can be.
Besides, why is it so difficult to suppose that this particular verb really
*does* take a person as its direct object?
I'm not saying this is definitely how things work, but it sure seems more
interesting this way.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97421.6