<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">So, the prefix trick only works for an indirect object, being a first or second person 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). 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.<div class=""><br class=""></div><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. You can’t have two direct object nouns in a Klingon sentence. There is no place to put the second one.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, {taj qanob.} = {SoHvaD taj vInob.}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{-egh} and {-chuq} is a different grammatical area where literal syntax suggests something other than the semantics. The syntax says there’s no direct object, but {-chuq} or {-‘egh} inform us that the subject is also the object. It doesn’t say that the subject is also the indirect object.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Perhaps, the “object” can represent either a null-pronoun or invisible noun direct object, or even an invisible {-vaD}-appended pronoun?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The main point of interest here is that the verb prefix normally tells us the person and number of the subject and object, except when the prefix trick informs us of the first or second person indirect object, instead, or when {-chuq} or {-‘egh} duplicates the subject into the object (probably direct object, but perhaps also indirect object?) position without reflecting that in the prefix.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In other words, if you take the two most confusing things one can do with a prefix and try to mix them in ways for which we have no canon to take as examples, you are not walking on thin ice.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You are walking on water.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And Klingons don’t like getting wet.<br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 7, 2020, at 9:02 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2020 8:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cLuj8N3pphY15Ef-nXYuTHD4=Roz+6t1fL3HxY2yEVUnA@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">jIH:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to
ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object
prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken.
Suppose we write:
taj jInob'eghpu'
I gave myself a knife
or
taj manobchuqpu'
we gave each other a knife
How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-}
and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very
basic which I don't understand, and this worries me.</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">Oh, no, those simply don't follow the prefix trick rule, which is
this: "When the indirect object ... is first or second person, the
pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person
object may be used."</p><p class="">Whether or not you think the subject of a reflexive verb can be
its indirect object, you haven't used prefixes which normally
indicate first- or second-person object.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>