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