tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 06 09:52:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajlo'
David Trimboli wrote:
>
> jatlh peHruS:
> > We have also seen that {jatlh} may take sentences as objects. That which is
> > spoken becomes the object of {jatlh}.
>
> This is unproven and, in my opinion, not true. In every case of {jatlh} with
> a quotation, the quotation has come *after* the sentence. You might argue
> that the object is just not in its normal place, but I think it makes much
> more sense to say that the quotation is a separate sentence which is just
> added onto one end of the sentence with the verb of saying. This would also
> explain why you can have an aspect suffix on either sentence's verb.
> lutlhob naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
> They ask him, "Can we get to the Great Hall from here?"
>
> This is {tlhob}, not {jatlh}, but it shows how verbs of saying are operating.
> Notice that the translation specifically says "they ask *him*," not just "they
> ask." In this case, the object of {tlhob} is almost certainly "him," the
> guard to whom they are speaking.
Consider the sentences:
He told them, "Didn't I already tell you that?"
I already told you about many things.
I already told you many things.
I already told you that you should do this.
I already told you you should do this.
The first sentence shows the English counterpart to David'ssentence, two
sentences after each other (with a comma which doesn't exist
intlhIngan).
"Them" and "you" are the indirect objects of "told". In the first case
we really can't say that the sentence has a direct object as we cannot
look upon the quotation as an object, but we can say that omitting the
object
calls for a quotation, which we indicate with quotation marks.
I think the problem arises from the lack of the following possible
workarounds:
* we cannot express "from" or "of" other than, which Okrand indicates,
with "Daq",
which we would interpret to speak in the same position as the object.
* there is no word for "about" either (only occurance i really know is
SaH and there
it's inherent to the verb)
* there is no equivalent for the english "that", as in "i told you that
I don't
do that" which would be the perfect solution to indicate a subordinate
clause
for indirection, which Okrand solved like English (in difference to
German)
can do: simply omitting the "that". But then, without quotation marks,
the
"that" sentence and the directly quoted sentence simply look alike.
Now we could argue, that we can omit the "about" in a similar way as we
can
do the "that". But could we still differ between the omitted "that" and
the omitted "about"? Sure we could. If we omit the "that", a complete
sentence
will follow (which is in many cases equivalent to the sentence in direct
speech). Apparently Okrand leaves it open to the context to decide which
usage of "tell" it is.
If we omit the about, a (sequence) of nouns is gonna follow the
word of saying. Why can't we just get along with letting the context
decide upon that variation as well?
In the English word "report" something similar is being done. It has
a direct object. If we consider the German equivalent "berichten",
it is be used with "ueber" which is equivalent to "about". Yet if
you omit the "ueber" you still get a perfectly understandable
sentence in German. Given the simplicity and, what Okrand stresses
a couple of time "many versions are correct, the usage depends on
the speaker", I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use
"ja'" or "jatlh" with "noun"-constructions, which don't particularly
need
to have to be direct objects, but can signal an omitted "about"
in that sentence. The occurance of "report" in the meaning list of
"ja'" still is an indicator for me that "ja'" can be used in the
meaning of "to tell about". IMHO, that is the difference which
Okrand wanted to give "ja'" to "jatlh". The words tell and report
themselves both carry the slight hint to "indirection" in themselves.
QetlhIS