<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2020 11:23 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
So, the prefix trick only works for an indirect object, being a
first or second person</blockquote>
<p>Yes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com"> being
capable of using language (since things not capable of speech
can’t be speaking in the first person and it has not been
culturally confirmed that Klingons speak to things incapable of
using language).</blockquote>
<p>Don't insert this editorial into the explanation. It hasn't been
culturally confirmed that Klingons DON'T speak to things incapable
of using language or that things incapable of using language can't
be fed words as if they were.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com"> The
prefix syntactically suggests that this indirect object were the
direct object, though grammatically (semantically?), it is treated
as the indirect object, so that a “di-transitive” verb (like
{nob}) can free up the syntactic slot for direct object, since
Klingon lacks syntax for two direct objects.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The prefix does not syntactically suggest that the indirect
object is the direct object. The prefix agrees with an "object."
NOWHERE does TKD say anything about that object having to be
direct. </p>
<p>In Klingon, "object" is a syntactic role. It is the unmarked
argument to the verb that precedes the verb. It generally
represents the entity on which the verb is acting, without regard
to what that actually means. "Direct object" is a semantic role
meaning the entity to which the action of the verb is done. In
simple sentences, the semantic direct object is usually the
syntactic object. "Indirect object" is a semantic role meaning the
entity that receives the result of the action of the verb. In
simple sentences, the semantic indirect object is usually either a
syntactic object or a syntactic "beneficiary" (noun marked with <b>-vaD</b>
that goes before any object), depending on the circumstances of
the sentence.</p>
<p>A verb like <b>nob</b> is not ditransitive. Klingon does not
have ditransitivity. Ditransitivity is when you have multiple
syntactic objects. A Klingon verb always has, at most, a single
syntactic object. What <b>nob</b> CAN have is simultaneous direct
and indirect objects. <b>SoHvaD taj vInob: SoHvaD</b> is the
syntactic beneficiary and the semantic indirect object and <b>taj</b>
is the syntactic object and semantic direct object. <b>taj qanob:</b>
<b>SoH</b> has no syntactic role because it is not said in the
sentence and <b>taj</b> is the syntactic object and semantic
direct object. In neither of these cases is there two syntactic
objects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com">
<div class="">I’m sure that this will spur on a clarification
about the Klingon idea of “object” without reference to it being
“direct” or “indirect”, but the point is, a Klingon sentence has
one position for a direct object, and a Type 5 suffix for
indirect object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Wrong. A Klingon sentence has one position for an object and a
type 5 suffix for beneficiary. Where its semantic roles end up
depend on the nature of the sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com">
<div class=""> You can’t have two direct object nouns in a Klingon
sentence. There is no place to put the second one.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is true. You can't have two nouns with the semantic role of
direct object because you can only have one noun with the
syntactic role of object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com">{-egh} and
{-chuq} is a different grammatical area where literal syntax
suggests something other than the semantics.</blockquote>
<p>Yes! Exactly!<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com"> The
syntax says there’s no direct object,</blockquote>
<p>No, the syntax says there's no object. In a sentence like <b>maleghchuq
maH</b><i> We see each other,</i> the direct object is also the
subject.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com"> but
{-chuq} or {-‘egh} inform us that the subject is also the object.</blockquote>
<p>Strictly speaking, TKD says nothing about the subject being the
object. It says "This suffix is used to indicate that the action
described by the verb affects the performer of the action, the
subject." It also says "the prefix set indicating 'no object' must
also be used." There is nothing there about the actual presence of
an object. "Affects the performer" semantically describes a direct
object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com"> It
doesn’t say that the subject is also the indirect object. </blockquote>
<p>And yet two of the examples on that very page demonstrate the
subject being the indirect object. <b>yIja''egh </b><i>Tell
yourself</i><i>!</i> <b>pe'ja''egh</b><i> Tell yourselves!</i>
are examples in which the reflexivity indicates an indirect
object. (Strictly speaking, there are no subjects in these
sentences, since they're imperative.) Semantically, the person is
an indirect object.<br>
<i></i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:07619A94-BD3A-4D05-99DE-F6A4FD165298@mac.com">
<div class=""><i><br class="">
</i> </div>
<i> </i>
<div class="">Perhaps, the “object” can represent either a
null-pronoun or invisible noun direct object, or even an
invisible {-vaD}-appended pronoun?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What would be the point of inventing phantom words?</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>