De'vID:
Going back through my discussions with Dr. Okrand, he wrote that {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} was fine as the object of {ja' qeylIS} jIH: Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}? SuStel: No, because we didn't know whether the qa- on ja' was an instance of the prefix trick or not, because we never saw a version as SoH qaja'pu'. Now we know that it's completely irrelevant whether it's the prefix trick. De'vID: No. In {qaja'pu'}, the object is second-person (and implicit, i.e., represented neither by a noun or a pronoun). In {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS}, the object is third-person (plural) and explicit (it's a noun phrase, not a pronoun).
Ok, wait a minute. Initially we had the {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}, where the problem was (if my understanding is correct) whether the {qa-} was a case of the second person prefix trick being used, or whether there was an elided {SoH} before the {ja'pu'}. So, 'oqranD was asked and he said that {ja'} *can* indeed take an object. But I still can't understand why this clarification was necessary. I mean was it ever possible that a verb can exist, which cannot take an object, and can only be used with a/the prefix trick? Or was it possible that there would be a verb which could only take a second person and implicit object? Obviously there was an issue with the {ja'}, which I (still) don't understand. And since I (still) don't understand what this issue was, I'm bound to misuse {ja'}. But what was that issue? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ