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

[De'vID]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 14:15, D qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I would translate it as "I said to you" and not "I told you", but this
seems fine based both on {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} from TKD and {qajatlh} from
the msn post of 1997-06-29.


> (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}?
>

You can write it, but it means "I speak Klingon", "I speak the Klingon
language". There's no possible context in which it would be clear that
{tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh} means "I speak Klingon to him". For that, you'd need
to write {ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}.

The reason that there's no ambiguity in the first- and second-person cases
is that "you", "I/me", or "we/us" can't be a thing which is spoken. Thus,
if a prefix indicating first- or second-person object is used with {jatlh},
that must indicate the listener.


> 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?
>

Why do you believe that {jang} can only take a person as the object? Maybe
it can take {QIn} or {ghum} or {qaD} or {bom} or {mu'} as objects.


> 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?
>

Yes, you're missing the fact that this is a quote from the original msn
post from which we learned that {jatlh} can be used to give direct
quotations. Was it not clear that the section "Clarifications to the msn
post in more detail" quotes from that post, and then follows the quote with
the clarification?


> 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"?
>

Because the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol}, is a thing that is spoken. In
{tlhIngan Hol qajatlh}, the {qa-} does not match the direct object
{tlhIngan Hol}, and thus "you" must be the indirect object. In {tlhIngan
Hol vIjatlh}, the {vI-} matches the direct object {tlhIngan Hol}, and
therefore you can't interpret it to be referring to an unstated indirect
object {ghaH}.

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

No.


> 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.

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. 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).


> 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.
>

I don't think it's been "extended" so much as "applicable all along, but
hadn't been explained explicitly".

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220617/ea695075/attachment-0016.htm>