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

[Will Martin]

You don’t seem to understand the prefix trick at all.

In English, I can say, “I gave the apple to you,” or I can say, “I gave you the apple.” That’s really the core of the prefix trick in Klingon. In either case, the apple is the direct object of the verb “gave” and “you" is the indirect object. If you just go by strict rules of English grammar and extract “I gave you…” out of the sentence, you’d tend to assume that “you" is the direct object, but seeing the whole sentence, you know better.

{SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.}

The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object (when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the examples in English.

{Holmey law’ lujatlh} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just bad grammar. There is no way to interpret it as the prefix trick. You made a mistake with the prefix because there’s no way to make the subject plural and the direct object singular in that sentence. You can’t imply any indirect object from this mistake.

For one thing, plurality doesn’t tend to play into the prefix trick. The prefix trick typically uses “person” to reveal itself. First or second person subject and an indicated second or first person direct object shown in the prefix, but an explicit noun in the 3rd person in the word-order position of direct object. That’s the classic prefix trick.

The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!” 

{loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error. The prefix {lu-} just gets forgotten a lot. I mean, A LOT! Like, why even pretend that it exists? It’s basically like saying, “Who do you trust?” Instead of “Whom do you trust.” The first one is grammatically wrong, and it bothers some people, but most people wouldn’t even notice.

Another hint: Direct quotation in Klingon reliably does not use the prefix trick because it uses one sentence to describe that speech happens, and the quotation is given total grammatical independence. It’s not really like Sentence As Object. There is nothing in the sentence of speech that points to the quotation. They just stand next to each other. The order of these two sentences is completely optional. 

Quote. He said.

He said. Quote.

The quotation is neither the direct object nor the indirect object of the sentence of speech. There is no place in this pairing of sentences for the prefix trick to be used.

Does this help? Can anyone else explain this better? Is there something here that I’m missing?

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Sep 30, 2024, at 5:15 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:
> 
> I was reading the *paq'raD* and I came along with the sentence *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* (*paq'raD* 6, 1), so I checked out again what was published here on June 2022 about the "prefix trick" being used with third-person verb prefixes, and I have some questions.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the "prefix trick" means that the verb prefix refers to the indirect object and not, as usual, to the direct object of the verb, and can *only* be used if there is no other possible interpretation of the prefix that makes sense. If there were any other possible interpretation, that interpretation would apply, not the "prefix trick".
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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"? 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?).
> 
> 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").
> 
> Thank you for your help!
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20240930/edf8689d/attachment.htm>