tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 09:49:01 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: taghwI' jIH
> That {ja'} takes a person as its object is supposition by Will Martin.
> Okrand does not confirm this in the above-quoted passage. Okrand simply
> rephrases Martin's last phrase, "the thing you say."
>
> There are a lot of uses of {ja'} in canon, and not one of them provides an
> unambiguous demonstration of the correct object of the word.
>
> I am of the opinion that {ja'} was invented for Kruge's line in Star Trek
> III, "Report status!" If this is the case, {ja'} could refer to something
> other than a person as its object (in this case, {Dotlh} "status"), and
> whenever we see {ja'} in canon using a prefix that indicates a person as the
> object, what is really happening is that the prefix trick is rearing its
> ambiguity-causing head.
Can the prefix trick be used with {-'egh} and {-chuq}? Some canon examples:
yIja''egh tell yourself! (ja' tell)
peja''egh tell yourselves!
ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer.
The last one seems especially telling because the indicated direct object is third person, and
third person indirect objects do not qualify for the prefix trick, so the indicated direct object
cannot be an indirect object disguised by the prefix trick. {ja'chuq} can only mean "They {ja'}
each other"; it cannot mean "They {ja'} [something] to/for each other".
Unless there's further canon on the prefix trick of which I am unaware and which allows the
prefix trick to be used with third-person indirect objects.
> SuStel
-Sangqar