<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/17/2022 8:15 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand
from this thread.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the takeaway message here is not to think about strict
rules when using verbs of speech.</p>
<p>All this "clarification" has really muddled things. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a
silly question as a warm up..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo'</div>
<div>I told you not to interrupt me<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously)
misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's more like <i>I said to you not to interrupt me.</i> There
may be times when the difference between <b>ja'</b> and <b>jatlh</b>
might be the medium of communication (e.g., one might <b>ja'</b>
though text, but <b>jatlh</b> implies actual speech). But most of
the time this and the version with <b>ja'</b> would probably be
interchangeable.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a
sentence like "I speak Klingon to him"<br>
> (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object,
{tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot<br>
> indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH]
lujang} "they answer him"<br>
> is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object
in context is Molor.<br>
<br>
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be
applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is
clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You can. It means <i>I speak Klingon.</i> It doesn't mean <i>I
speak Klingon to him </i>because the default assumption is that
when you have a verb prefix apparently agreeing with a sensible
object, that prefix will be interpreted as agreeing with that
object, not with some elided indirect object. I can see some
word-play being possible in the ambiguity, but in general the
default assumption is that the prefix trick is not being used, and
this is only changed if the object and prefix don't make sense
together in context.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside,
since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing
the reply, why was this clarification necessary to start with?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Did Okrand say the only object <b>jang</b> can take is the
person hearing the reply? If so, I missed that. I can imagine
sentences like <b>bey vIjang</b><i> I answer the wail</i> or <b>pum
vIjang</b><i> I answer the accusation,</i> no prefix trick.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct
quotations<br>
<br>
Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this
again? Am I missIng something here?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Giving a thorough explanation sometimes involves restating that
which is already known.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving
direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person,<br>
> the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>.
Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol
lujatlh}<br>
> means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh
[chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'".<br>
> In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the
prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon"<br>
> and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would
be understood as the first).<br>
<br>
In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence:<br>
<br>
tlhIngan Hol qajatlh<br>
"I speak Klingon to you"<br>
<br>
So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third
person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too
"the speak Klingon to him"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Since the default assumption is that an object and prefix
matching means there is no prefix trick, this will only be
interpreted as <i>They speak Klingon.</i> In theory, if I said <b>Holmey
law' lujatlh,</b> then it might be interpreted as <i>They speak
many languages to him,</i> because the prefix is wrong
otherwise. However, I'd hesitate to employ this, as it would look
more like an error than a use of the prefix trick.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say,
'Klingon language'<br>
<br>
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, but it can mean <i>They speak Klingon.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the
prefix does not distinguish<br>
> between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon
language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).<br>
<br>
Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, because the prefix naturally matches the object already.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">De'vID:<br>
> Going back through my discussions with Dr. Okrand, he<br>
> wrote that {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} was fine as the object of
{ja' qeylIS}<br>
<br>
<div>Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu'
HIqaghQo'}?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, because we didn't know whether the <b>qa-</b> on <b>ja'</b>
was an instance of the prefix trick or not, because we never saw a
version as <b>SoH qaja'pu'</b>. Now we know that it's completely
irrelevant whether it's the prefix trick.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+Ad5evsX3=Hbb7OME4P4bUJs3c5+GuOR6j72W8__hzxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder,
but apart the clarification that the prefix trick can be
extended for the third person as well, I can't understand if
there's something new I need to notice/understand in all this
too.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The lesson to learn is: the prefix trick only works when it would
be wrong or make no sense without the prefix trick. (It's
basically Okrand saying, whatever I said before is right because
the new rule is that anything that is wrong is actually right.).<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>