[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[nIqolay Q]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> I don't think you can use it for any application of *-vaD,* only for when
> *-vaD* indicates an indirect object. In your *qaHoHqang* example, for
> instance, *SoH* is not an indirect object: *SoH* benefits from the
> action, but the action does not result in something actually given to
> *SoH.*
>
Out of the three verbs I can think of that have been used with the prefix
trick -- *nob*, *'ang*, and *jatlh* -- only the first involves actually
giving someone something. In the case of *tIqwIj Sa'angnIS* or *tlhIngan
Hol qajatlh*, *tlhIH* or *SoH* are benefiting from the action but aren't
really getting anything out of it physically.

(Also, is the assumed distinction between meanings of *-vaD* a carryover
from the ways that suffix is translated into English? Do Klingon
grammarians make a distinction between the *jIHvaD* in *jiHvaD taj Danobpu'*
and in *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq*?)

> I think the prefix trick works because Klingon prefixes must agree with
> the "object" of the verb, not necessarily only the "direct object." In
> certain cases where it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed
> with, the prefix can agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object. It's
> not that prefixes can agree with any object they like, direct or indirect;
> it's just that under certain circumstances the prefix can be reassigned to
> do different work than it usually does.
>
That's why my examples have explicitly third-person direct objects (or, in
the case of *muqab**, a stative verb that can't have a direct object at
all), so that it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed with.


On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 10/4/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is highly unlikely, that a mere mortal -i.e. someone who isn't a
>> friend of maltz-, would ask and his question would be answered..
>>
>> However, since even us -the little people-, are allowed to dream, I would
>> like to ask that these questions are eventually clarified at the qepHom to
>> come..
>>
>> 1. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if both nouns joined by it
>> are singular.
>> 2. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if one of the nouns is
>> plural.
>> 3. the {ngIq}.
>> 4. the {vabDot} (although I'm not quite certain, that the clarification
>> needed here, is with regards to the grammar, or its meaning).
>> 5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?
>> 6. Can we have two {qu'} or two {be'} on the same word ?
>>
>
> I have a question of my own I'd like to ask: how far does the prefix trick
> stretch? Can it only be used with some verbs or some meanings of *-vaD*?
> Or is any use of *-vaD* eligible (provided all the relevant nouns are in
> the correct person)? For instance, do these work:
> *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang* -> *bangwI', wa'SaD SuvwI'
> qaHoHqang **"My love, I'd kill a thousand warriors for you."*
> *jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh* -> *DuSaQwIj Deq muqawmoH
> qachvetlh* *"That building reminds me of my old school."*
> *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* -> *muqab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* *"Too much
> Terran food is bad for me."* (*chaq DaH jIwoghpu'...*)
>
> These are questions I brought up when the prefix trick was first explained
> to us (I was not a fan, and I still think it was Okrand's way of covering
> sloppy translations from English). I don't think you can use it for any
> application of *-vaD,* only for when *-vaD* indicates an indirect object.
> In your *qaHoHqang* example, for instance, *SoH* is not an indirect
> object: *SoH* benefits from the action, but the action does not result in
> something actually given to *SoH.*
>
> I think the prefix trick works because Klingon prefixes must agree with
> the "object" of the verb, not necessarily only the "direct object." In
> certain cases where it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed
> with, the prefix can agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object. It's
> not that prefixes can agree with any object they like, direct or indirect;
> it's just that under certain circumstances the prefix can be reassigned to
> do different work than it usually does.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171004/f138d699/attachment-0016.htm>