<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/29/2021 7:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLS4Lz=BhPrLfrJ_hyrEZumv7Z+KqiU979RKjGhHai+=Q@mail.gmail.com">I
know that perhaps this is a ridiculous thing to ask, but I'll ask
anyway, just to make certain.<br>
<br>
The only Ca'Non examples of the verb {ja'} which I know of, come
from tkd and they are the following:<br>
<br>
{nuja'rup} "they are prepared to tell us"<br>
{qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} or {HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'} "I told you not to
interrupt me"<br>
<br>
In these Ca'Non examples the "prefix trick" way of use is employed
(I don't know how else to describe it), i.e we don't have {maHvaD
ja'rup}, and we don't have {SoHvaD jIja'pu' HIqaghQo'}/{HIqaghQo'
SoHvaD jIja'pu'}.<br>
<br>
So, the thing I'm wondering is this..<br>
<br>
Is it necessary that whenever we use the {ja'} we need to use it
the "prefix trick" way? Can't we use it with the {-vaD} way too?</blockquote>
<p>We don't know that the <b>nuja'rup</b> and <b>qaja'pu'</b>
examples are using the prefix trick. All we know is that their
prefixes agree with the person or people being told something.
Taken by themselves, we have no way of knowing whether this entity
is considered a direct or indirect object.</p>
<p>But we <i>do</i> have examples of explicit indirect objects with
<b>ja':</b></p>
<blockquote><b>'ej chaHvaD lut ja'</b><i><br>
And told them his tale.</i> (paq'batlh)<br>
</blockquote>
<p>We even have unambiguous examples of the prefix action on <b>ja':</b></p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'<br>
</b><i>Now I will tell you why I am here.</i> (paq'batlh)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And lest you jump to the conclusion that the object of <b>ja'</b>
must be the thing told, we have a counterexample where the people
told are the object:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS<br>
</b><i>Kahless tells his brother and father </i>(paq'batlh)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe this all comes down to the definitions of the terms <i>object,
direct object,</i> and <i>indirect object.</i> In Klingon, <i>object</i>
is a syntactic role, referring generally to the unmarked* argument
that precedes the verb. A <i>direct object</i> is a semantic
role, referring to a noun phrase or pronoun upon which the subject
is performing the verb. An <i>indirect object</i> is a semantic
role, referring to a noun phrase or pronoun which receives the
result of the verb.</p>
<p>* <i>Unmarked</i> meaning by type 5 noun suffixes not including
<b>-'e'.</b><br>
</p>
<p><b>chaHvaD lut ja' qeylIS</b><i> Kahless tells them the tale.<br>
</i>The object is <b>lut,</b> because it is the unmarked argument
to the verb and precedes it. The direct object is <b>lut,</b>
because it is the noun phrase upon which the subject is performing
the verb (the tale is being told by Kahless). The indirect object
is <b>chaHvaD,</b> because <i>they</i> are receiving the telling
of the tale.</p>
<p><b>loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS</b><i> Kahless tells his
brother and father.<br>
</i>The object is <b>loDnI'Daj vavDaj je,</b> because it is the
unmarked argument to the verb and precedes it. The indirect object
is <b>loDnI'Daj vavDaj je,</b> because they receive the telling.
There is no direct object, because it is not said <i>what</i>
Kahless tells.</p>
<p><b>DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja' </b><i>Now I will tell you why
I am here.<br>
</i>The object is <b>naDev jIHtaHbogh meq,</b> because it is the
unmarked argument to the verb and precedes it. The direct object
is <b>naDev jIHtaHbogh meq,</b> because it is the noun phrase
upon which the subject is performing the verb (it is told by me).
There is no indirect object, but one is implied because by the
prefix trick the prefix agrees with a second-person, plural object
instead of the stated third-person object, so it's understood that
the indirect object is <b>tlhIH.</b></p>
<p><b>qaja'pu'</b> <i>I told you.<br>
</i>There is no object, because there is no argument preceding the
verb. There is no direct object, because nothing is said about
what is being told. There is no indirect object, but one is
implied by the prefix agreeing with a second-person singular
object, so we understand the indirect object to be <b>SoH.</b></p>
<p>Especially in this last example, it's important to realize that
knowing whether an object is a direct object or indirect object is
purely a semantic issue — that is, the <i>meaning</i> of the
words decide. This is exactly the same between English <i>I told
you</i> and <i>I told a tale:</i> you understand that <i>you</i>
is an indirect object and <i>a tale</i><i> </i>is a direct
object based purely on your understanding of what the words and
sentences mean, not by any analysis of its syntax.<br>
<b></b></p>
<p>So the answer to your question is, yes, you can say <b>SoHvaD
jIja'pu', HIqaghQo'</b> and <b>maHvaD ja'rup.</b> Given the
relative lack of this sort of thing, however, I wonder whether
it's normal to do so. My impression is, as far as speaking goes
anyway, it's quite common for the prefix to agree with the
indirect object, whether because the semantic indirect object is
the syntactic object or because the indirect object is being
implied by the prefix trick.<br>
<i></i> </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>