tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 28 00:14:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Refining our ideas on indirect objects



ja' SuStel:
>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."  

Well, it probably means more like "I speak for your benefit," but okay.

>The key part of this is the condition that the prefix indicate 
>something that COULD NOT BE A LOGICAL OBJECT OF THE VERB.

I'd rather be a little less prescriptive, and say that if the prefix does
not match the obvious object, it's most likely intended to refer to the
recipient of the action instead.

>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.

Again, I'd tone it down a bit and say that because misinterpretation *is*
possible, and indeed is likely, one should avoid trying to use this form
in such cases.  While you're probably not going to be understood, it might
not really violate grammar to say {qa'ang} when you mean "I show it to you."

>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?

The only thing *I* see that is stopping this is that it sounds wrong. :-)

Since the only possible interpretation of {muqet} using the rules we know
is "he runs for me", I won't say it's ungrammatical.  That's what I will
interpret it to mean, and if that is what you intend to say, then there's
not necessarily a problem of grammar.  But it's one of those "highly marked"
constructions, like {-wI'} or {-ghach} on a verb with a prefix, or using
{-ghach} on a naked verb.  It might actually follow the rules, but if so
it follows them into very unusual territory.

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level