<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/30/2024 11:08 PM, Will Martin via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D20912BF-5EA8-4673-8EB7-97EEE82E5C47@gmail.com">
<div>You don’t seem to understand the prefix trick at all.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In English, I can say, “I gave the apple to you,” or I can
say, “I gave you the apple.” That’s really the core of the
prefix trick in Klingon. In either case, the apple is the direct
object of the verb “gave” and “you" is the indirect object. If
you just go by strict rules of English grammar and extract “I
gave you…” out of the sentence, you’d tend to assume that “you"
is the direct object, but seeing the whole sentence, you know
better.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The grammars of English and Klingon in this example are
completely different.</p>
<p>First let's look at the English. There are two ways we can say
this:</p>
<p><i>I gave the apple to you.</i></p>
<p>Here, <i>the apple</i> is the direct object. There is no
indirect object. Instead, we have a preposition, <i>to,</i> which
has an object, <i>you.</i> The <i>you</i> is <i>not</i> the
indirect object of the verb <i>gave.</i></p>
<p><i>I gave you the apple.</i></p>
<p>Here, <i>the apple</i> remains the direct object, but <i>you</i>
is now the indirect object. In English, the indirect object comes
between the verb and the direct object.</p>
<p>Now for Klingon. Here, we also have two ways to say this:</p>
<p><b>SoHvaD 'epIl naH vInoppu'.</b></p>
<p>Here, <b>'epIl naH</b> is the <i>object</i> (never mind direct
or indirect; it's the "object"). <b>SoHvaD</b> is the
beneficiary. <i>Semantically,</i> these words play the same roles
as the direct and indirect objects, respectively, in English, but
in Klingon the roles are "object" and "beneficiary."</p>
<p><b>'epIl naH qanobpu'.</b></p>
<p>Here, <b>'epIl naH</b> remains the object (again, never mind
worrying about direct or indirect; it's the "object"), but the
beneficary has disappeared. Instead, we get the prefix trick,
using a prefix that does not agree with the object. This tells us
that the prefix trick is being used, and it tells us that the
indirect object of the sentence, what would normally be the
beneficiary, is <b>SoH.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D20912BF-5EA8-4673-8EB7-97EEE82E5C47@gmail.com">
<div>{SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object
(when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the
examples in English.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The word that comes before the verb is the "object," not the
"direct object." Sometimes you can distinguish the English role of
direct or indirect object for the Klingon "object," but to
Klingon, it's just an "object."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D20912BF-5EA8-4673-8EB7-97EEE82E5C47@gmail.com">
<div>For one thing, plurality doesn’t tend to play into the prefix
trick. The prefix trick typically uses “person” to reveal
itself. First or second person subject and an indicated second
or first person direct object shown in the prefix, but an
explicit noun in the 3rd person in the word-order position of
direct object. That’s the classic prefix trick.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Except our definition of the prefix trick was expanded a couple
of years ago. See the message the OP referenced. Specifically, if
there's no possibility of confusion, third-person prefixes may
also be used for the prefix trick. The given example is <b>lujang</b>
for <i>they answer him.</i></p>
<p>We were also told that the earlier revelation about the prefix
trick, the one specifying first- and second-person object
prefixes, was simplified for brevity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D20912BF-5EA8-4673-8EB7-97EEE82E5C47@gmail.com">
<div>The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but
there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and
down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!” <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Explicit nouns are the actual objects; prefixes merely <i>agree</i>
with objects. Assuming it's not an error, if the prefix doesn't
agree with the object that's sitting right there, then it is
agreeing with an unstated indirect object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D20912BF-5EA8-4673-8EB7-97EEE82E5C47@gmail.com">
<div>{loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the
prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not an error. It is evidence that Klingon verbs take
"objects" as arguments, not "direct objects." You have never let
go of this desperate idea that Klingon verb arguments are strictly
split between direct and indirect objects. They're not. Direct and
indirect object are not syntactic roles in Klingon; they are
syntactic roles in English that are sometimes used to describe
things that are happening semantically in Klingon. The relevant
Klingon syntactic roles in this topic are "object" and
"beneficiary."<br>
</p>
<p><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>