tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 26 18:23:08 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: I Object!
From: <[email protected]>
> > yuQ vIleng - I travel to the planet
> > yuQDaq vIleng - I travel to the planet
> > (the second one has -Daq, but notice the prefix vI- )
>
> This point had been made to me before, with {jaH}, and I didn't quite get
it
> then. I was still scratching my head until I read SuStel's post. Now I
> believe I understand.
>
> jatlh SuStel:
> >Klingon has objects. It also has subjects and headers. These are the
only
> >"noun cases."
>
> > yuQDaq vIleng
> > "I travel to the planet."
> > yuQDaq = object (that happens to have a locative sense)
>
> > DujDaq yuQ vIleng
> > "I travel to the planet on the ship."
> > DujDaq = header (that happens to have a locative sense)
> > yuQ = object
>
> This is where the light bulb went on for me. It is now my understanding
that
> the direct object of {leng}, {ghoS}, or {jaH} can have the suffix -Daq, or
> not, and it doesn't change the meaning. Having -Daq does not necessarily
> make a noun an "indirect object".
Bingo!
> A header in a sentence with these verbs
> may have the same form that a direct object may have (i.e. -Daq), and can
> only be distinguished with certainty from a direct object by seeing if the
> verb has a prefix indicating an object or not.
>
> DujDaq jIleng - I wander around on board the ship.
> Duj vIleng - I travel to the ship.
> DujDaq vIleng - I travel to the ship.
>
> I suppose it would also be possible to have a sentence where the header
and
> the object are both marked with -Daq.
>
> yuQDaq DujDaq jIleng - I wander around on board the ship, (which is) on
the
> planet.
> yuQDaq DujDaq vIleng - I travel to the ship, (which is) on the planet.
>
> Do I have it right?
lughchu'!
> jatlh Lawrence:
> > I believe I understand the *intent* here, but the distinction that is
being
> > made could just as easily be dismissed as disingenous.
>
> > Does any language actually "have" grammatical features?
>
> In theory, I agree with the point being made here.
jIQochbe'. pab ghajqu'be' Hol; pab 'ay'mey buv Hol tejpu'.
> But in this case,
> remember that SuStel's different way of putting it finally made it clear
to
> me, the learner.
That was really the reason I wrote that: not to flout my way of looking at
it, but because it just hadn't looked clear for a while.
> Of course, the grammar of any language can be described in
> multiple ways -- and I think it's helpful to make several ways of looking
at
> it available to the student. Keeping in mind, naturally, that any one way
is
> just that: _one_ way.
batlh bIqeS, 'ej pIqImchugh maDo'.
SuStel
Stardate 2072.5