Re: KLBC: (was: RE: "startrek" tlhIngan Quj)

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <sangqar@hotmail.com>
> >maHvaD napchu' pagh.
>
> This would be a neat extension of the prefix trick.  But if I remember
> correctly, the prefix trick requires a third-person direct object.

It does not.

====================
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.

[...]

qajatlh "I speak to you"

Sajatlh "I speak to you [plural]"

chojatlh "you speak to me"

====================================
(from Marc Okrand, post to MSN forum, 6/30/97)

So there are a couple of possibilities here.  On the one hand, you might try
to claim that for /maHvaD napchu' pagh/, /maHvaD/ is not an indirect object,
though it is a beneficiary, and therefore does not fall under the prefix
trick.  I suspect this is splitting hairs that don't exist in Klingon.
/maHvaD/ is /maHvaD/.  A Klingon doesn't stop to decide whether you mean it
as an indirect object or another kind of beneficiary.

Another possibility is that you really can prefix-trick this.  */nunapchu'
pagh/.  I REALLY don't think this is true.

Finally, and I suspect this is the case, the prefix trick simply doesn't
work with verbs of quality.

This still leaves the question of whether you can say something like
*/qaQong/ "I sleep for you."  I don't think that works, either, though it
might be suggestive of the "an indirect object, not just any kind of
beneficiary" argument.

SuStel
Stardate 2540.9