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

[D qunen'oS]

I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread.

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.

(And now the main body of the message follows)

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}?

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?

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?

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"?

De'vID:
> whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'

Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?

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"?

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'}?

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.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
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/20220617/7993353f/attachment-0015.htm>