tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 13 21:11:35 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
From: "Andrew Strader" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >In this specific case, though, there's another problem. Despite the
> >gloss "tell", we know that <lut ja'be'lu'. lut jatlhlu'. nuv ja'lu'.>
> Ah yes. You have a good point there. In the known canonical examples the
> object of ja' (if it has one) is always an interlocutor. The direct object
> jatlh is always either a language or an utterance. Notable, however, is
> ja' also has the gloss "report", which is precisely what one does to a
> and not to a interlocutor. Anyway, that was my thot process on the matter,
> but you may be right about ja', considering known canon.
Can someone compile a list of all canonical uses of /ja'/? I'm a little
worried that all uses have 1st or 2nd person object prefixes, meaning that
they COULD be indicative of the prefix trick, rather than an actual 1st or
2nd person object.
Also, has Okrand actually confirmed what the object of /ja'/ is? I see that
in the interview in HolQeD 7:4, 7, It's Will who declares what the object of
/ja'/ would be, but Okrand doesn't say anything.
What would convince me is either Okrand saying "Such-and-such is the object
of /ja'/," or an example with a 3rd person object. Even then, I wonder if
/ja'/ might be looser than we're making it out to be, able to take either
the person spoken to or the thing said its object.
- From: Andrew Strader <email@example.com>