I don't think "ditransitive" exactly reflects what the prefix trick is doing. To my eyes, Klingon doesn't really have ditransitivity. Klingon verbs take objects as arguments. The objects they take can be direct or indirect objects, without distinction. For example, the verb {ja'} can have as its object a direct object, the report told {SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe'}, or an indirect object, the person spoken to {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS}. How you interpret the role of the object is entirely contextual. You would never interpret the object in {jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH} as an indirect object, for example. When you use {-vaD} to indicate an indirect object, this means you are indicating what IN ENGLISH we would call an indirect object. In Klingon, however, this is a beneficiary. In {yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'}, {yaSvaD} is not an object of the verb. So this is not an example of ditransitivity. The verb prefix does not, in itself, contain an object (or a subject). Let's remember how basic Klingon sentences work. We start with a complete sentence: Duj lutIj yaSpu'. We can then, if we wish, replace nouns with pronouns: 'oH lutIj chaH. And finally, we have the option of eliding pronouns: lutIj. Every time you see a verb standing on its own as a sentence, it has, in theory, gone through this process of turning nouns into pronouns and then dropping the pronouns. When we see a sentence like qalegh. we know that it really means: SoH qalegh jIH. The object is NOT built into the verb prefix; it is just elided. The prefix merely AGREES with the object (and subject). So when we see an example of the prefix trick, like ghIchlIj qanob. we can see that the prefix does not agree with the object that comes before it. What's it doing? The prefix is agreeing with an object that is not there; it is IMPLYING a second object. There are rules for how this works. Generally, the prefix must obviously NOT agree with the explicit object, or it must imply an object that cannot be the verb's normal object. We see an example of the former above. An example of the latter is {qajatlh}, where the {qa-} implies an object of {SoH}, but saying "I speak you" doesn't make sense, so we understand the prefix to be agreeing with an unspoken indirect object. The prefix trick will ALWAYS make the prefix agree with an unspoken indirect object. So we get questions like, is {qaja'} an example of a verb agreeing with an elided object {SoH qaja' jIH}, or is it an example of the prefix trick from {SoHvaD jIja' jIH}? And I think the answer is, "Yes." That is, there isn't really a strong distinction between these two in Klingon, because the difference between direct and indirect object in Klingon is so fluid and inexact. Thus, I think ditransitivity isn't really a thing in Klingon, though the concept of having both that which is acted upon and that for which the verb is performed can still be wrapped up into the object-verb relationship, thanks to prefix agreement. Regarding your example sentences, I think both {HoD qaHoH} and {paq qalaD} are perfectly valid for these meanings. --SuStel ======================= From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Lieven L. Litaer via tlhIngan-Hol Hello, dear friends of the Klingon language. I just learned a new word from an experienced inguist, called "ditransitivity". If I got it correct, this is used to describe verbs who can have 2 objects, as in "I give you (1) the knife (2)". Question 1: The question came up if it's possible to assign this quality to Kingon verbs, and if it makes any sense to do so. I am aware that canon Klingon grammar does not use the term "transitivity", but it exists. Using the "prefix trick", we have such verbs, as in {taj qanob} or {tIq Sa'ang}. Question 2: Technically spoken, this is a replacement for the construction with {-vaD}: SoHvaD taj vInob --> taj qanob. I wonder how far this can be expanded. Following the pattern the following should be okay: SoHvaD HoD vIHoH --> HoD qaHoH. SoHvaD paq vIlaD --> paq qalaD. What do you think?