jIH:
> since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply
SuStel:
> Did Okrand say the only object jang can take is the person hearing the reply?
> If so, I missed that. I can imagine sentences like bey vIjang I answer the wail or
> pum vIjang I answer the accusation, no prefix trick.
De'vID:

> Why do you believe that {jang} can only take a person as the object?

> Maybe it can take {QIn} or {ghum} or {qaD} or {bom} or {mu'} as objects.

I was obviously under the erroneous impression that the only object {jang} can take is the person to who someone {jang}s. I don't know why or how I came to believe so, but now I realize that I was wrong all along.

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ