<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Thanks. This helps a lot.<div><br></div><div>The remaining thing that I wonder is that, given the right context and given the fluidity between beneficiary {-vaD} and indirect-object-grammatically-indicated-in-Object-position that is common to Klingon, I could see a conversation like:</div><div><br></div><div>{nuqDaq nuH?}</div><div><br></div><div>{vInob.}</div><div><br></div><div>{‘Iv Danob?}</div><div><br></div><div>{HoD vInob.}</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that under normal circumstances that {nob} would not have an indirect object in the grammatically-object position with no noun suffix, but all the reasons to shortcut the indirect object in that position in other cases apply here because of the obvious context of the thread. I also agree that the entire conversation is grammatically flawed, but easily understandable, all because of the context threaded through it.</div><div><br></div><div>The question is, does this ability to put an otherwise {-vaD}worthy noun in the Object position rely wholly on the specifics of common usage of the verb, the way that special locative-related verbs use {-Daq}worthy nouns as unmarked Objects, or is it more context flexible and vocabulary independent, as is suggested by the prefix trick.</div><div><br></div><div>I doubt we have enough evidence to be sure, one way or the other. Meanwhile, I doubt many people would have difficulty understanding the above conversation.</div><div><br></div><div>Then again, I doubt that we’ll ever see {QeD’e’ puqloDwI’ vIghojmoH}, even though that makes more sense to me than the canon-proven, correct {puqloDwI’vaD QeD vIghojmoH}.<br><br>The language doesn’t have to make sense according to my arbitrary ideas or proclivities. A student of English would have a LOT of suggestions about how English SHOULD work, but doesn’t, given that we park in the driveway and drive on the parkway, but we don’t park on the driveway or drive there, and we don’t drive in the parkway or park there.</div><div><br></div><div>Language is an arbitrary agreement among speakers of the language, or among regulating authorities, when such authorities exist. The French and Turkish speakers have such authorities. English doesn’t. Klingon does.<br><br><div dir="ltr">-charghwI’, retired.</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 19, 2021, at 3:48 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">Okrand explains to us about null prefixes. I’m dimly
beginning to suspect that there is also at least one null
suffix.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">My vague memory of an interview with Okrand more
than a decade ago, includes times when I used the word
“transitive” and Okrand corrected me to say “takes an object”.
This happened repeatedly because I was stupid enough to fail to
recognize my stupidity. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Also, in TKD, it talks about word order as “Object
Verb Subject” and uses the word “Object” quite a bit, but I
can’t find an instance of him using the term “Direct Object”.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think I’ve been inserting the idea of a Direct
Object into a language that doesn’t distinguish Direct Objects
from other kinds of Objects. In other words, Klingon doesn’t
have a Direct Object or an Indirect Object. It just has Objects.
Some are supplemented in syntactical information by Type 5
suffixes, and some aren’t.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hey hey! You got there! Woo hoo!</p>
<p>But don't confuse the nouns with type 5 suffixes on them as
"objects." They're not. Each Klingon clause has at most one
object. Those other words are just other words. The ones with type
5 suffixes I tend to call <i>syntactic nouns.</i> A linguist
might call them nouns in an oblique case, though that would
require a clearer understanding of what <i>oblique</i> means to a
Klingon case system than I am prepared to figure out. There are
also noun-based time expressions, which don't take any kind of
marking.</p>
<p>In Klingon, the object is its own syntactic role. Just as a noun
like <b>DujDaq</b> has the syntactic role of <i>locative</i> and
<b>yuQvo'</b><i> </i>has the syntactic role of <i>ablative,</i>
the object has the syntactic role of "noun the subject performs
the verb on." This is purely syntactic, not semantic: being an
object doesn't impart any <i>meaning</i> to the noun or the
action. This is why we can say both <b>puq vIghojmoH</b><i> I
teach the child</i> and <b>QeD vIghojmoH</b><i> I teach
science:</i> being the "object" doesn't have any semantic
meaning, but being the "recipient" <b>(puq)</b> or "theme" <b>(QeD)</b>
or whatever does.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">This would explain the “prefix trick” and the {-moH}
sentences I have despised for so many years. In other words, a
noun might optionally take {-vaD} and have the same meaning in a
sentence whether the {-vaD} is present or not. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes!</p>
<p>Of course, it depends on the verb. Different verbs expect certain
semantic roles as their objects and only accept words that mean
certain things. We have been told explicitly that the object of <b>jatlh</b>
must be the speech-event and cannot be the addressee. You can say
<b>SoHvaD jIjatlh,</b> but you cannot say <b>SoH qajatlh.</b>
However, we <i>also</i> have the prefix trick, which says that
you can make a verb prefix agree with an unstated indirect object
if it's first- or second-person. So you <i>can</i> say <b>qajatlh</b><i>
I speak to you.</i> It's not that <b>SoH</b> is the object of <b>jatlh;</b>
it's just that the prefix is allowed to agree with an elided
indirect object <i>instead</i> of the direct object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">What I’ve been taking as a specific Direct Object
might instead more simply be an unspecified kind of object, and
what I think of as a Direct Object is more simply an object that
perhaps takes a null Type 5 suffix, or more simply, it’s an
unspecified type of object that has no possible Type 5 suffix
that could be applied to it in the given sentence.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You could think of objects (and subjects) as having
null-suffixes, but they wouldn't be type 5 suffixes, because
subjects and objects can have the suffix <b>-'e'</b> on them. And
I don't see why Klingon would have these hypothetical subject and
object suffixes anywhere but type 5. I don't know if this is a
helpful thing to imagine.</p>
<p>But the general idea is correct. Klingon inflects all its various
noun syntactic roles <i>except</i> subject and object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">So, in {be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH}, {tlhIngan Hol
vIghojmoH}, and {be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngnan Hol vIghojmoH},
{be’nalwI’} is never a Direct Object. It’s just an object, and
in the first sentence, the {-vaD} isn’t necessary and is
unstated, and the verb prefix doesn’t indicate that it is the
Direct Object of the verb. It simply agrees with its status as
an Object, not explicitly identified by a Type 5 suffix. In the
last sentence, the {-vaD} is present for clarity’s sake.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You're almost there! It's not that <b>-vaD</b> is added to the
last sentence for clarity. You can't say <b>be'nalwI' tlhIngan
Hol vIghojmoH.</b> A Klingon clause can have no more than one
object. That seems to be an ironclad rule of Klingon. The rule
appears to be that if more than one noun or noun phrase <i>could</i>
be the object, then whatever noun or noun phrase is in the role of
recipient (i.e., indirect object) gets put into the beneficiary
noun case, marked explicitly with <b>-vaD.</b> The other noun or
noun phrase becomes the object and is not marked. And the two
nouns or noun phrases must go in the correct order: beneficiary
before object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">In other words, {-vaD} is akin to a plural suffix.
If you already know the noun is plural, you don’t need a plural
suffix. If you know that a noun is a beneficiary, you don’t need
{-vaD}. It’s not wrong to explicitly use it, but it’s just not
essential. It’s a language, not a computer program. Just because
you CAN use a Type 5 suffix doesn’t mean you have to.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's kinda-sorta like <b>-vaD</b> is optional, but only where we
know that a verb can use a recipient as its object. Can you say <b>HoD
vInob</b> to mean that you give the captain something
unspecified? I don't think so, any more than I think you can say <i>I
give the captain</i> in English to mean you give something to
the captain. In English, the word <i>give</i> doesn't work that
way. But the word <i>tell</i> does: <i>I tell the captain; I
tell the captain the information.</i> So it is in Klingon: each
verb will potentially have a different relationship with its
object than others do.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">Similarly, that also explains why certain verbs
don’t require {-Daq} for nouns that obviously have a locative
function. Meanwhile, it makes sense that over time, verbs that
commonly have locative-nouns as objects might more formally
decide when to use the {-Daq} and when to not use the {-Daq} in
order to more give more nuance into the nature of the use of the
locative with that verb, so you can differentiate whether you
are going to a river (destination) or going in a river (route,
or vehicle), etc. This kind of nuance doesn’t work for other
verbs because location isn’t a core part of the meaning of most
verbs.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Remember, though, that it's specifically the verb that imparts a
locative sense to its object. <b>Dab</b> is a locative-object
verb; <b>nob</b> is not. I can say <b>yuQDaq vIDab </b><i>I
inhabit the planet,</i> and I can say <b>yuQ vIDab</b><i> I
inhabit the planet,</i> and I can say <b>yuQDaq vInob,</b> but
this can only mean <i>I give him/her/it/them on the planet,</i>
and I can say <b>yuQ vInob,</b> and this can only mean <i>I give
the planet (to someone).</i> It's different for every verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">Of course this idea of more generic Objects also
leaves open the following possibilities for which we have no
canon, but until such canon appears, this is only unverified
conjecture:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In that last example, the prefix indicates no object
because the Type 5 suffixes already identify nouns that are
objects, so there’s no need to redundantly point to them with
the prefix.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, no. Type 5 suffixes don't identify objects. It appears to
be impossible to mark a noun with a type 5 suffix, except for <b>-'e',</b>
or if it's <b>-Daq </b>on a locative-sense verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">Also, the “prefix trick” isn’t really even a trick.
If I’d understood the optional nature of Type 5 noun suffixes,
then the following would already make sense:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">chab qanob.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The prefix indicates one object, {SoH}, and
positionally, there’s another object {chab}. Context tells you
that {SoH} is the beneficiary, so the {-vaD} is wholly
unnecessary, and {chab} doesn’t need a Type 5 Suffix to explain
its grammatical relationship to the verb.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The prefix trick simply lets you make the prefix agree with an
elided indirect object, whether or not there is an object. If the
indirect object is present, you cannot use the prefix trick. <b>-vaD</b>
is not dropped because of context.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">I’m guessing that SuStel has been trying to explain
this to me for years, but I couldn’t begin to understand that
which I had misunderstood because it was an unknown unknown, as
a former member of the military industrial congressional complex
once put it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You are VERY close now. You have it right that Klingon doesn't
have SYNTACTIC positions called direct object and indirect object.
It has the syntactic position of "object." Actually, it does sort
of have a syntactic case of "indirect object": the suffix <b>-vaD.</b>
When the noun indicates the semantic notion of recipient
("indirect object"), it can be marked with <b>-vaD</b> to
indicate this semantic role syntactically. <b>-vaD</b> doesn't
only mean "indirect object," though; it means "beneficiary."
(E.g., <b>Qu'vaD lI' De'vam.</b> <b>Qu'vaD</b> is not an
indirect object. Indirect object is a subset of beneficiary.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:57B499F4-E007-42F3-A4E3-8C0E48B7D9C9@mac.com">
<div class="">Or perhaps more likely, he’s about to explain how I
have once again gotten it wrong, and someone will be entertained
by the ensuing thread. In any case, it gives one distraction
from The State Of The World at the moment, and anything that can
do that is worthwhile.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think you've gotten over the conceptual hurdle. Now it's just a
matter of avoiding the stones along the track.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list</span><br><span>tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</span><br><span>http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>