tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 12 21:18:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Object wIjatlhlaH'a'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Object wIjatlhlaH'a'
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:17:58 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
As is pointed out here, the conclusion I came to (though I don't
always remember it) is that the ONLY object of {jatlh} is {Hol},
and the only object of any other verb of speech is the person
addressed. There are indeed only examples of {jatlh} with {Hol}
as object, or with nothing as object. Similarly {ja'} and
{tlhob} seem to have only the person addressed as object or
nothing as object.
charghwI'
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> |>From: [email protected]
> |> [...] Still, I get the feeling we can put verbs of speaking after that
> |>"sentence" which is spoken, thus identifying the "sentence" as the Object
> |>of the verb of speaking.
> |
> |I think this is canon, that verbs of speaking can precede or follow the
> |sentence spoken. Okrand says so. There's some debate over whether or not
> |the sentence spoken thereby does or does not constitute the object of the
> |verb of speaking. The current feeling is that it doesn't, but personally I
> |can't really shake it myself. I keep wanting to hear vI- and Da- prefixes
> |instead of jI- and bI-.
> |
> |~mark
>
> My feeling exactly. However, I looked through my corpus again but, aside
> from the well-known joke with the prisoner and the guard ('avwI'vaD jatlh
> qama' <<jIghung>> etc.), could only find this from CK:
> <<'eb Qav!>> jatlhpu'.
> He said, "Last call!"
> Which proves nothing since Klingon verbs take no verb prefix in the 3rd
> person singular--with or without an object. (Oops! I know: more accurately
> they take a zero prefix, but that's just a matter of terminology). The
> position of {'eb Qav} before {jatlh} is suggestive though. Other than
> these, the only object Okrand has used with {jatlh} is a language.
>
> Well, there's always his new book come Fall...
>
> BTW you'll note that {'eb Qav!} is an incomplete sentence which shows that
> Klingons, just like the rest of us, *do* talk in sentence fragments relying
> on context for clarity. Some grammarians don't allow beginners to do this.
> But this is merely a stylistic preference, not a grammatical rule.
> Pedagogically, of course, this is a good idea: you should understand the
> rules thoroughly before you can break them with any style.
>
> -- Voragh
>