[tlhIngan Hol] some info on {jatlh} and {jang}

[SuStel]

On 6/17/2022 8:15 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
> I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread.

I think the takeaway message here is not to think about strict rules 
when using verbs of speech.

All this "clarification" has really muddled things.


> But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a silly 
> question as a warm up..
>
> qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo'
> I told you not to interrupt me
>
> Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously) 
> misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years.

It's more like /I said to you not to interrupt me./ There may be times 
when the difference between *ja'* and *jatlh* might be the medium of 
communication (e.g., one might *ja'* though text, but *jatlh* implies 
actual speech). But most of the time this and the version with *ja'* 
would probably be interchangeable.


> De'vID:
> > it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I 
> speak Klingon to him"
> > (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} 
> "Klingon", and thus cannot
> > indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} 
> "they answer him"
> > is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in 
> context is Molor.
>
> If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied 
> to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why 
> couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}?

You can. It means /I speak Klingon./ It doesn't mean /I speak Klingon to 
him /because the default assumption is that when you have a verb prefix 
apparently agreeing with a sensible object, that prefix will be 
interpreted as agreeing with that object, not with some elided indirect 
object. I can see some word-play being possible in the ambiguity, but in 
general the default assumption is that the prefix trick is not being 
used, and this is only changed if the object and prefix don't make sense 
together in context.


> As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside, since the only 
> object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply, why was this 
> clarification necessary to start with?

Did Okrand say the only object *jang* can take is the person hearing the 
reply? If so, I missed that. I can imagine sentences like *bey vIjang*/I 
answer the wail/ or *pum vIjang*/I answer the accusation,/ no prefix trick.


> De'vID:
> > The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations
>
> Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this again? 
> Am I missIng something here?

Giving a thorough explanation sometimes involves restating that which is 
already known.


> De'vID:
> > Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct 
> quotations... If the speaker is first or second person,
> > the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this 
> applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh}
> > means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} 
> means "they say, 'Klingon language'".
> > In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does 
> not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon"
> > and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be 
> understood as the first).
>
> In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence:
>
> tlhIngan Hol qajatlh
> "I speak Klingon to you"
>
> So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person 
> as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak 
> Klingon to him"?

Since the default assumption is that an object and prefix matching means 
there is no prefix trick, this will only be interpreted as /They speak 
Klingon./ In theory, if I said *Holmey law' lujatlh,* then it might be 
interpreted as /They speak many languages to him,/ because the prefix is 
wrong otherwise. However, I'd hesitate to employ this, as it would look 
more like an error than a use of the prefix trick.


> De'vID:
> > whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
>
> Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?

No, but it can mean /They speak Klingon./


> De'vID:
> > In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does 
> not distinguish
> > between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but 
> normally it would be understood as the first).
>
> Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"?

No, because the prefix naturally matches the object already.


> De'vID:
> > Going back through my discussions with Dr. Okrand, he
> > wrote that {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} was fine as the object of {ja' qeylIS}
>
> Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}?

No, because we didn't know whether the *qa-* on *ja'* was an instance of 
the prefix trick or not, because we never saw a version as *SoH 
qaja'pu'*. Now we know that it's completely irrelevant whether it's the 
prefix trick.


> I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder, but apart 
> the clarification that the prefix trick can be extended for the third 
> person as well, I can't understand if there's something new I need to 
> notice/understand in all this too.

The lesson to learn is: the prefix trick only works when it would be 
wrong or make no sense without the prefix trick. (It's basically Okrand 
saying, whatever I said before is right because the new rule is that 
anything that is wrong is actually right.).

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220617/d2892d74/attachment-0002.htm>