<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/20/2021 9:19 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C6E7474C-CA80-47F6-B3FF-AD9304211AEB@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">This weirdness about objects with {-moH} has always
bothered me. I mean, if Klingon is simply loose with what
objects are, then why to we bother talking about the prefix
trick when we say something like {chab HInob}? If objects are so
loose, why even call it a trick? It’s just yet another loose
object. It doesn’t deserve having a specific term to describe it
or rules about it’s use. The only special thing about it is that
it was revealed to us before all the looseness with {-moH}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's called the "prefix trick" because <i>I</i> called it that.
I coined the phrase. I did so scornfully, because it seemed to me
that the rule was created as a lame excuse for errors by Okrand in
which he just translated English without thinking, and didn't
consider the very straightforward rule that the verb prefix must
agree with the object.</p>
<p>In fact, I still think Okrand was covering for sloppy, Englishy
translations, but I also think this new information was something
more: a sign that Okrand was thinking more carefully about the
grammar of Klingon, and deepening it in response, deepening it
beyond the simple "an object is an object is an object" structure
it had at first. Klingon clearly had need of more complicated
predicates, as was being demonstrated to him by KLI members who
kept questioning his sentences and expressing frustration with the
limitations of Klingon. I think he was also being asked to
translate more and harder pieces, and he discovered that he needed
to make Klingon more flexible to do this.</p>
<p>The "looseness" we're talking about is not a property of <b>-moH.</b>
It's a property of Klingon objects. Consider the old sentence, <b>qaja'pu'</b><i>
I told you.</i> What is the object of the sentence? Apparently,
it's an elided <b>SoH,</b> because the prefix <b>qa-</b> tells
us so. So everyone said "The object of <b>ja'</b> is the person
spoken to." But (a) that doesn't jibe with the gloss given in TKD,
where the person being spoken to would be the <i>indirect object,</i>
not the direct object, and (b) we have since seen <b>ja'</b> take
other objects, like <b>lut.</b> The solution is simple: the
"object" of a verb might be a direct object (acted upon) or an
indirect object (receives the result of the action), depending on
how the verb is used.</p>
<p>It just so happens that verbs with <b>-moH</b> encounter object
"looseness" more often because verbs with <b>-moH</b> add a new
entity into the semantics of the sentence: the causer. The old
entities might still be present, so you have to think carefully
about what is being acted upon and what is receiving the result of
the action. But this "looseness" isn't a property of <b>-moH</b>
itself; it's a general property of Klingon sentences that <i>might</i>
change things up depending on what verb you're using and how
you're using it.</p>
<p>I still call it the <i>prefix trick</i> partly to remind myself
of my foolish days when I thought Klingon sentences were rigid,
their syntax and semantics invariable, and partly because that's
what everybody calls it now, and we don't have another phrase for
it. But it's not a trick; it's just a fact of verb prefixes, that
while they must agree with an <i>object,</i> they don't
necessarily have to agree with a <i>direct</i> object.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>