<!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 5:15 AM, Luis via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-8c03889c-5c62-42fe-9c19-b08863125114-1727687711879@3c-app-webde-bap10">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Right.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-8c03889c-5c62-42fe-9c19-b08863125114-1727687711879@3c-app-webde-bap10">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html">http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html</a>). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Understand that no one in that thread was speaking in terms of
absolute rules. I was talking about ambiguity and uncertain
interpretations. De'vID was a little more certain that <b>Holmey
law' lujatlh</b> would just be considered an error.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-8c03889c-5c62-42fe-9c19-b08863125114-1727687711879@3c-app-webde-bap10">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-8c03889c-5c62-42fe-9c19-b08863125114-1727687711879@3c-app-webde-bap10">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The prefix trick is only used when the indirect object is <i>not</i>
said explicitly. It's either <b>SoHvaD paq vInob</b> or <b>paq
qanob.</b></p>
<p>I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that <b>SoH paq</b>
cannot be a noun-noun construction. When dealing with directions
and areas, we get constructions like <b>jIH 'em</b> <i>area
behind me.</i> I believe we say things like <b>jIH 'em</b>
instead of <b>'emwIj</b> because I do not actually possess <b>'em,</b>
so possessive suffixes are inappropriate. So while phrases like <b>SoH
paq</b> <i>you book</i> aren't going to be normal, they would
still be understood in the same way: it's not <b>paqlIj</b> <i>your
book;</i> a <b>SoH paq</b> is an extraordinary way to refer to
a book about you. It's not good grammar, but it's not downright
unintelligible, either.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-8c03889c-5c62-42fe-9c19-b08863125114-1727687711879@3c-app-webde-bap10">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor").</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think you're interpreting those lines correctly. <br>
</p>
<b>DaH peHarghchoH<br>
DaH molor yISuvchoH<br>
</b><b> tIja'</b>
<p><i>Tell them, "Start a major battle now! Start Fighting Molor
now!"</i></p>
<p>This is an instance of quotation. The quotation is not any object
of any kind; it is just another sentence pushed against the
sentence that refers to speaking. The prefix trick may or may not
be in use here (its use in <b>ja'</b> quotations has never been
fully solved, in my opinion), but this stanza follows the pattern
of <b>ja'</b> completely.</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>