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

[l.cp at web.de]

Thank you, charghwI' and SuStel, as always for your replies and the interesting discussion. That was *a lot* of information!

I understand SuStel's distinction between sintactic and semantic roles, and I find it a really exciting topic, but since in the thread I'm referring to "direct object" and "indirect object" are used, I will also use these terms here.

SuStel:

>>> 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.
>>
> Well, it's technically correct, but what I forgot to mention is that it'll probably be interpreted as a mistaken attempt to say *tlhIngan Hol lujatlh chaH, *rather than an attempt to say /They say, Klingon language./ Unless the quotation version is already expected by the listener.

Yes, I understand.
 
>> 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.

Ok! I suppose *Holmey law' lujatlh* is more likely to be understood as an error because it's a third-person object with a prefix referring to a third-person object, whereas in *paq qanob* we have a third-person object with a prefix referring to a second-person object.
 
>> 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.

But if I'm not mistaken, in the thread I'm referring to *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* or *SuStel vIjang* are interpreted as instances of the "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes. So the prefix trick is not only used when the indirect object is not explicit, or am I missing something? Anyway, re-reading the thread I found an explanation of De'vID in which he says that Okrand confirmed him that if Kahless were telling *a story* to his father and brother, these would be marked with *-vaD*, so no possibility of "prefix trick" with both explicit objects.

> 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.

Yes, I was also thinking on this possibility, but I was not sure about it.

>> 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.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. I know that quotations are not the object of the sentence with the verb of speech. But in the thread I've mentioned *lujang* ("They answer him") is considered an example of "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes. What is the difference with *tIja'* ("Tell them")? In both cases there is no direct object. We also have the example *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*, which is followed by a direct quotation, and in that thread seems to be considered an instance of the "prefix trick".

Or are you using the concept "prefix trick" just for situations in which we have an explicit direct object and a prefix pointing to an elided indirect object, and you consider sentences like *lujang*, *SuStel vIjang* or *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* just examples of verbs that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object (but you don't consider them instances of the "prefix trick")?

Thank you!