tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 25 21:05:39 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Refining our ideas on indirect objects

The matter of indirect objects in Klingon has bothered me for a long time.  
I've been thinking about it today.  There are still a few kinks to work out.

My reference is Marc Okrand's posting to his forum on June 30, 1997, also 
available at http://www.kli.org/cgi-bin/mfs/1997/Jun97/1047.html

(I've used tabs to distinguish the quotes.  Do these make it through your 
mailers correctly?)

We were finally told flat out that

	When the indirect object [...] is first or second
	person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
	person object may be used.

An example which he gives:

	tIqwIj Sa'angnIS
	"I must show you [plural] my heart"

Okrand also says

	when there's already an object [...], the "object" of the
	prefix is interpreted as the indirect object.

However, this does not make explicit what happens when there is no object.  
Fortunately, there's something sneaky imbedded in his example using {jatlh}:

	Since the object of jatlh is
	that which is spoken, and since "you" or "I" or "we" cannot be spoken (and
	therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a
	pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first
	or second person is the indirect object.

What he's saying is that while {qajatlh} would seem to be saying "I speak you" 
(as if you are a thing to be spoken aloud), it actually means "I speak to 
you."  The key part of this is the condition that the prefix indicate 
something that COULD NOT BE A LOGICAL OBJECT OF THE VERB.

This suggests to me that while one might say {tIqwIj Sa'angnIS}, one cannot 
say {Sa'angnIS} for "I show it to you (plural)."  Since you COULD reveal 
people, {Sa-} might indicate a possible direct object.  {Sa'angnIS} means "I 
reveal you (plural)."  There must be no misinterpretation possible when using 
verbs which can take objects.

There is one problem with all of this which gives me cause for alarm.  Suppose 
one says

	jIHvaD lI' De'vam
	This information is useful to me.

Couldn't one say instead {mulI' De'vam}?  What's stopping this?  I just don't 
think this is supposed to work like this.  My guess is that verbs of quality 
can't use prefixes to indicate indirect objects.

Then there's

	jIHvaD qet loD
	The man runs for me.  (Not "The man runs to me"; that would be {jIHDaq qet 
loD}.)

Can this become {muqet loD}?  Again, I doubt it.  {qet} is not a verb of 
quality, but it is a "stative" verb, in the sense that it describes an action 
which does not affect anything else.

Ultimately, I think that a verb must be able to take SOME direct object for it 
to be able to indicate first or second person indirect object by prefix, and 
then the prefix mustn't be misinterpretable as indicating the direct object.

It's both funny and annoying, but English works in just about the same way.

	jIHvaD taj nob
	He gave the knife to me.

	taj munob
	He gave me the knife.

The only difference is that Klingon can only do it when the indirect object is 
first or second person.

	loDHomvaD taj nob
	He gave the knife to the boy.
	He gave the boy the knife.

Well, that's me rambling.  Additions or corrections are welcome.

-- 
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97735.2

Back to archive top level