tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 02 09:39:04 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu- (was Re: yIHmey)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-04-29 12:34:28 EDT, Voragh writes:
>
><< So how do *you* use the mu- prefix? Don't you like to use it at all? Or
> rather is your quibble about {jang}? >>
>
>My quibble is about {jang}. {mujang} would mean "he answers me"; I am the
>Object. Asmuch as I like all the examples you quoted for using {mu-}, I
>don't feel quite as good about it on {jang}. OTOH, MO has used {paq qanob}
>for "I give you the book." I tend to look at {qanob} as fitting better in
>this sentence: {jaghpu'vaD qanob}.
These are both very much matters of style, I think. A reasonable case can
be made for both sides. Indeed, "paq qanob"-style sentences, when first
seen in Okrand, caused QUITE a stir (and SuStel and charghwI', at least,
IIRC, don't like them much). For very much the same reasons you being
down: "qa-" implies that "you" is the OBJECT, not the recipient. But
apparently we have here canon (and not an isolated case either) that you
can use prefixes this way as a shorthand for indirect objects. My view on
this is that you can only do such a thing when there is an *explicit*
direct object also stated, which does NOT agree with the verb prefix (thus
making it clear that it's the indirect object meaning being used). So,
while "paq qanob" works, I would not use a bare "qanob" for "I give [it] to
you"; that would require "'oH qanob" (or, of course, SoHvaD vInob). This
is similar to English, where you can't have an indirect object without a
direct object ("throw him the ball" is okay, as is "throw!", but "throw
him" does not mean the same as "throw to him."). The other criterion is
probably pretty obvious: I wouldn't use "paq vInob" for "I give him the
book", since there's no way to tell I have an indirect object prefix there
(whereas "paq qanob" is clear; there's no other reason to use qa-). I
*suppose* I could see "?SoH vInob" for "I give you to them" by that
reasoning, but that's such an unusual case that I bet nobody would do that
and stick with "chaHvaD qanob." I probably would not expect third-person
object prefixes ever to be used in this fashion.
>peHruS
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM2oYrMppGeTJXWZ9AQG3dQL8Dl+UQt/+LpNB/8E64XnwrsiCgL1YBgZ/
0n7bZ7FgLobH8UWTC9tpFHrNWf4aTKyLPUuZUmYfuwohRVigE/3a1ATBUIcg0Hfo
IAUyXKwVu0q1Y9x4RDAy1MVTbJbugtbe
=99Uy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----