tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 14 15:11:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
jatlh (was Re: qa'vIn)
: > [email protected] writes:
: > << ja' K'ryntes
: > ><He'So' je mu'tlheghvam> DajatlhnIS 'e' vIHar. >>
: >
: > And, a quote is not a direct object of <jatlh>, that I believe. This
gives:
: > <He'So' je mu'tlheghvam> bIjatlhnIS 'e' vIHar.
:
: Are you sure? I thought I had to use Da- because I was saying, "You need to
say
: it" and the object was <He'So' je mu'tlheghvam>. If I wanted to say, <You
said,
: "This sentence stinks too"> then I would do it like this <He'So'
mu'tlheghvam je
: bIjatlh> because that would be a quote.
Yes, counterintuitive though it may be to an English speaker. Okrand has
mentioned this a couple of times, starting with TKD p.67:
Similarly, with verbs of saying (say, tell, ask, etc.), {'e'} and {net} are
not used.
The two phrases simply follow one another, in either order: {qaja'pu'
HIqaghQo'}
or {HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'} "I told you not to interrupt me". This is literally,
"I told
you, 'Don't interrupt me!'" or "'Don't interrupt me!' I told you."'
You can tell that the quotation is not the direct object of {jatlh} because of
the prefix {qa-}, which refers to the person being addressed. If the
quotation
were in fact the DO, Okrand would have used {vI-}. This is actually quite
concise and elegant, though punctuation in the Klingon would have made this a
bit clearer for beginners.
: > Furthermore, although it is
: > not necessary to put <jatlh> before the quote, I have seen it often in
canon.
: > This gives: bIjatlhnIS <He'So' je mu'tlheghvam> 'e' vIHar.
: >
: > peHruS
:
: I'm confused by this and I don't think I agree but I don't have enough
experience
: to defend my position so, unless pagh says different, I won't attempt to
argue
: that. I know that jatlh can go before or after but I'm not sure it applies
to
: this situation because it wasn't a quote.
:
: K'ryntes
According to MO, it can be in either order -- though I'm sure individual
speakers tend to favor one over the other.
Since TKD, we now know that although {jatlh} may take a direct object - "that
which is spoken" (e.g. a speech, a lecture, an address, a language) - that
object is *not* the actual quotation itself. Sometimes I think MO did this
just to be ornery!
I refer you to Okrand's lengthy post back on the old MSN Expert Forum:
---------------------------------------- begin forwarded post
----------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc Okrand" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand
Date: 29 Jun 1997
Subject: Re: Some quick questions...
Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> 1) Does qajatlh mean anything? Some feel this is poor grammar. I'm not
> sure what to think. Can jatlh take an object other than a language?
The object of jatlh "speak" is that which is spoken. Thus, it's OK to say
"speak a language," for example:
tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon"
(tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it")
But it's also OK to say "speak an address, speak a lecture," for example:
SoQ Dajatlh "you speak an address" or, more colloquially, "you
deliver an address" or "you make a speech"
(SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it")
To say simply:
jatlh "he/she speaks"
implies "he/she speaks it," where "it" is a language or a lecture or
whatever.
The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is the hearer/listener.
Thus:
qama'pu'vaD tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon to the prisoners"
(qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language,"
Dajatlh "you speak it")
qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the prisoners"
(qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ "speech, lecture, address,"
Dajatlh "you speak it")
When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or second
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
person object may be used. There are other examples of this sort of thing
with other verbs. For example, someone undergoing the Rite of Ascension
says:
tIqwIj Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] my heart"
(tIqwIj "my heart," Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] it")
The pronominal prefix in this phrase is Sa-, which means "I [do something
to] all of you" in such sentences as:
Salegh "I see you [plural]"
but when there's already an object (in this case, tIqwIj "my heart"), the
"object" of the prefix is interpreted as the indirect object, so Sa- means
"I [do something to] it for you" or the like.
This, then, brings us back to your question. 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.
Which is a not very elegant way of saying that qajatlh means "I speak to
you" or, more literally, perhaps "I speak it to you," where "it" is a
language or a speech or whatever:
qajatlh "I speak to you"
Sajatlh "I speak to you [plural]"
chojatlh "you speak to me"
tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you"
(tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," qajatlh "I speak it to you")
There's another wrinkle to this. The verb jatlh can also be used when
giving direct quotations:
tlhIngan jIH jatlh "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"
(tlhIngan "Klingon," jIH "I," jatlh "speak")
jatlh tlhIngan jIH "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"
(With verbs of saying, such as jatlh, the phrase that is being said or
cited may come before or after the verb.)
If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating
"no object" is used:
tlhIngan jIH jIjatlh "I say, 'I am a Klingon'"
(jIjatlh "I speak")
tlhIngan jIH bIjatlh "you say, 'I am a Klingon'"
(bIjatlh "you speak")
There are instances where the pronominal prefix marks a big distinction in
meaning:
tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon"
(tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it")
tlhIngan Hol bIjatlh "you say, 'Klingon language'" [that is "you say
the phrase 'Klingon language'"]
(tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," bIjatlh "you speak")
I realize that this answer to your "quick" question is probably too quick
itself. It is not by any means a complete discussion of the several topics
mentioned and I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be
phrased. As a result, this answer may end up just raising other questions.
qay'be'. We'll get to them as they come along.
---------------------------------------- end forwarded post
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons