<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/2/2024 7:21 PM, Luis via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
When you say "no possible direct object", do you mean direct quotations...</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, quotations are not objects of any kind. In all of this
discussion, if a verb of speech is being used, it is entirely
irrelevant whether there is a quotation or not.<br>
</p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">...or no direct object, as in qajatlh...</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, that's what I mean. In fact, it's "no explicit object:
either not possible or obviously not meant." It's possible for <b>jatlh</b>
to have a direct object, but when you say <b>qajatlh,</b> you
obviously don't mean <i>I speak you as a language.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">... or do you mean, like in *qajatlh*, that *you* cannot be the direct object, because a person cannot *be spoken*, and thus it must be the indirect object?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That's part of it, yes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">The reason why *qajatlh* is an instance of the "prefix trick" and not an instance of a verb taking an object with the semantic role of the indirect object, is just that we were told that the object of *jatlh* is a language, an act of speech or the thing that is being said, but not an audience,</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> whereas we know that *ja'* can also take an audience as object, right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">However, in the thread I was referring to you can also find the sentence *tlhIngan vIjatlh* ("I speak to the Klingon").</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't see that in the thread you linked to. I see <b>tlhIngan
Hol vIjatlh,</b> not <b>tlhIngan vIjatlh.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> Would that be an instance of the "prefix trick"?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, that would probably be considered an error. Someone probably
forgot to add <b>Hol</b> to indicate that they were speaking
"Klingon language."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-309dcdb8-fb65-47f3-ae4b-445fa51a73c1-1727911292368@3c-app-webde-bap06">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Are there other verbs apart from *ja'* (and maybe *jang*) that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Probably lots of them. <b>ghojmoH</b> is an example. In <i>paq'batlh</i>
we see both <b>[puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH</b> and <b>QIt ghaHvaD
yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH.</b> In the former, the student is the
object; in the latter <i>life and death is</i> the object<span style="white-space: pre-wrap"> in the role of direct object, and <i>he</i> is the beneficiary in the role of indirect object.</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<p>(And if that elided object in the first one concerns you, try <b>ghojwI'pu'
chu' ghojmoH jatlhwI'pu' po'qu'</b> from qepHom'a' 2013.)</p>
<p>"But that's got <b>-moH</b>!" I hear you cry. So what? The only
thing <b>-moH</b> does is give the subject (syntactic role) the
semantic role of causer instead of agent or theme or whatever. All
the stuff people have said over the years about objects becoming
subjects and so on is just more tortured grammar rules.<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>