tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 09 19:16:08 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Basic grammar question

Doq (

On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:02 AM, QeS 'utlh wrote:

> ghItlhpu' Qang qu'wI', ja':
>> "You start the engine for me." <--> "You start me the engine."
> Here I'd say either {QuQ choQapchoH} or {jIHvaD QuQ DaQapchoH}. I'd  
> be happy with either one.

I would expect {QuQ chochu'}. {QuQ choQapchoH} is just grammatically  
wrong. "I begin to function... the engine." {Qap} is not transitive,  
and {-choH} doesn't make it transitive. {-moH} might, but even then,  
it sounds more like you've repaired the engine than that you've  
started it.

>> "You explain it to me." <--> "You explain me it."
> For this one I'd usually use the prefix trick: {choQIj}.

This sounds like, "You explain me." The prefix trick doesn't work  
unless the prefix disagrees with the person of the direct object, and  
in this case, there is no direct object to disagree with. Maybe if  
you said, {'oH choQIj}, it would work.

> Of course, what I said is only a tendency that I've developed.  
> Since the dative interpretation of {-vaD} is so ingrained in canon,  
> sometimes it's not really possible to unambiguously differentiate  
> between the "to" and "for" meanings: {SoHvaD vInob} could mean "I  
> gave it to you" or "I gave it for you", and most of the time the  
> "to you" interpretation is what will be understood. It's only in  
> situations like {Qu'vaD taj qanob} "I gave you the knife for the  
> mission" where the interpretation is fairly unambiguous (since  
> Okrand has explicitly said that the "indirect object" - by which I  
> understand him to mean the dative - is what's promoted to direct  
> object position).

So, could you also say that as {SoHDaq Qu'vaD taj vInob} or  
{ghoplIjDaq Qu'vaD ret'aq vInob}?

> QeS 'utlh
> tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language  
> Institute


Back to archive top level