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

D qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 05:57:16 PDT 2022

> 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
> irrelevant whether it's the prefix trick.
> No. In {qaja'pu'}, the object is second-person (and implicit, i.e.,
represented neither by a noun
> or a pronoun). In {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS}, the object is
third-person (plural) and
> explicit (it's a noun phrase, not a pronoun).

Ok, wait a minute.

Initially we had the {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}, where the problem was (if my
understanding is correct) whether the {qa-} was a case of the second person
prefix trick being used, or whether there was an elided {SoH} before the
{ja'pu'}. So, 'oqranD was asked and he said that {ja'} *can* indeed take an

But I still can't understand why this clarification was necessary. I mean
was it ever possible that a verb can exist, which cannot take an object,
and can only be used with a/the prefix trick? Or was it possible that there
would be a verb which could only take a second person and implicit object?

Obviously there was an issue with the {ja'}, which I (still) don't
understand. And since I (still) don't understand what this issue was, I'm
bound to misuse {ja'}. But what was that issue?

Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220620/fcd88a0e/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list