[tlhIngan Hol] "Prefix trick" with third-person verb prefixes

[SuStel]

On 9/30/2024 5:15 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
> 1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?

Right.


> 2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here:http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something?

Understand that no one in that thread was speaking in terms of absolute 
rules. I was talking about ambiguity and uncertain interpretations. 
De'vID was a little more certain that *Holmey law' lujatlh* would just 
be considered an error.


> 3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"?

No.


> How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?).

The prefix trick is only used when the indirect object is /not/ said 
explicitly. It's either *SoHvaD paq vInob* or *paq qanob.*

I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that *SoH paq* cannot be a 
noun-noun construction. When dealing with directions and areas, we get 
constructions like *jIH 'em* /area behind me./ I believe we say things 
like *jIH 'em* instead of *'emwIj* because I do not actually possess 
*'em,* so possessive suffixes are inappropriate. So while phrases like 
*SoH paq* /you book/ aren't going to be normal, they would still be 
understood in the same way: it's not *paqlIj* /your book;/ a *SoH paq* 
is an extraordinary way to refer to a book about you. It's not good 
grammar, but it's not downright unintelligible, either.


> 4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor").

I don't think you're interpreting those lines correctly.

*DaH peHarghchoH
     DaH molor yISuvchoH
**    tIja'*

/Tell them, "Start a major battle now! Start Fighting Molor now!"/

This is an instance of quotation. The quotation is not any object of any 
kind; it is just another sentence pushed against the sentence that 
refers to speaking. The prefix trick may or may not be in use here (its 
use in *ja'* quotations has never been fully solved, in my opinion), but 
this stanza follows the pattern of *ja'* completely.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20241001/a2e015f7/attachment.htm>