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

[SuStel]

On 10/2/2024 7:21 PM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
> When you say "no possible direct object", do you mean direct quotations...

No, quotations are not objects of any kind. In all of this discussion, 
if a verb of speech is being used, it is entirely irrelevant whether 
there is a quotation or not.

>> ...or no direct object, as in qajatlh...

Yes, that's what I mean. In fact, it's "no explicit object: either not 
possible or obviously not meant." It's possible for *jatlh* to have a 
direct object, but when you say *qajatlh,* you obviously don't mean /I 
speak you as a language./


> ... or do you mean, like in *qajatlh*, that *you* cannot be the direct object, because a person cannot *be spoken*, and thus it must be the indirect object?

That's part of it, yes.


> The reason why *qajatlh* is an instance of the "prefix trick" and not an instance of a verb taking an object with the semantic role of the indirect object, is just that we were told that the object of *jatlh* is a language, an act of speech or the thing that is being said, but not an audience,

Yes.


>   whereas we know that *ja'* can also take an audience as object, right?

Yes.


> However, in the thread I was referring to you can also find the sentence *tlhIngan vIjatlh* ("I speak to the Klingon").

I don't see that in the thread you linked to. I see *tlhIngan Hol 
vIjatlh,* not *tlhIngan vIjatlh.*


>   Would that be an instance of the "prefix trick"?

No, that would probably be considered an error. Someone probably forgot 
to add *Hol* to indicate that they were speaking "Klingon language."


> Are there other verbs apart from *ja'* (and maybe *jang*) that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object?


Probably lots of them. *ghojmoH* is an example. In /paq'batlh/ we see 
both *[puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH* and *QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH.* 
In the former, the student is the object; in the latter /life and death 
is/ the objectin the role of direct object, and /he/ is the beneficiary 
in the role of indirect object.

(And if that elided object in the first one concerns you, try 
*ghojwI'pu' chu' ghojmoH jatlhwI'pu' po'qu'* from qepHom'a' 2013.)

"But that's got *-moH*!" I hear you cry. So what? The only thing *-moH* 
does is give the subject (syntactic role) the semantic role of causer 
instead of agent or theme or whatever. All the stuff people have said 
over the years about objects becoming subjects and so on is just more 
tortured grammar rules.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20241002/8a82f7ad/attachment.htm>