tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 03 06:19:40 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mu- (was Re: yIHmey)

ghItlh ~mark
>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.

bIlughbej.  HuvHa' HevwI'DIpmey 'e' vIHar, 'ach "ghaH"vaD "chaH"vaD "bIH"vaD joq
moHaqwotmey lulo'benISlu'.
Qapla'
qoror

(I know these words I made are going to make a lot of controversy.  Just for the
record.)

Back to archive top level