So, the prefix trick only works for an indirect object, being a first or second person
Yes.
being capable of using language (since things not capable of speech can’t be speaking in the first person and it has not been culturally confirmed that Klingons speak to things incapable of using language).
Don't insert this editorial into the explanation. It hasn't been culturally confirmed that Klingons DON'T speak to things incapable of using language or that things incapable of using language can't be fed words as if they were.
The prefix syntactically suggests that this indirect object were the direct object, though grammatically (semantically?), it is treated as the indirect object, so that a “di-transitive” verb (like {nob}) can free up the syntactic slot for direct object, since Klingon lacks syntax for two direct objects.
The prefix does not syntactically suggest that the indirect object is the direct object. The prefix agrees with an "object." NOWHERE does TKD say anything about that object having to be direct.
In Klingon, "object" is a syntactic role. It is the unmarked argument to the verb that precedes the verb. It generally represents the entity on which the verb is acting, without regard to what that actually means. "Direct object" is a semantic role meaning the entity to which the action of the verb is done. In simple sentences, the semantic direct object is usually the syntactic object. "Indirect object" is a semantic role meaning the entity that receives the result of the action of the verb. In simple sentences, the semantic indirect object is usually either a syntactic object or a syntactic "beneficiary" (noun marked with -vaD that goes before any object), depending on the circumstances of the sentence.
A verb like nob is not ditransitive. Klingon does not
have ditransitivity. Ditransitivity is when you have multiple
syntactic objects. A Klingon verb always has, at most, a single
syntactic object. What nob CAN have is simultaneous direct
and indirect objects. SoHvaD taj vInob: SoHvaD is the
syntactic beneficiary and the semantic indirect object and taj
is the syntactic object and semantic direct object. taj qanob:
SoH has no syntactic role because it is not said in the
sentence and taj is the syntactic object and semantic
direct object. In neither of these cases is there two syntactic
objects.
I’m sure that this will spur on a clarification about the Klingon idea of “object” without reference to it being “direct” or “indirect”, but the point is, a Klingon sentence has one position for a direct object, and a Type 5 suffix for indirect object.
Wrong. A Klingon sentence has one position for an object and a
type 5 suffix for beneficiary. Where its semantic roles end up
depend on the nature of the sentence.
You can’t have two direct object nouns in a Klingon sentence. There is no place to put the second one.
This is true. You can't have two nouns with the semantic role of
direct object because you can only have one noun with the
syntactic role of object.
{-egh} and {-chuq} is a different grammatical area where literal syntax suggests something other than the semantics.
Yes! Exactly!
The syntax says there’s no direct object,
No, the syntax says there's no object. In a sentence like maleghchuq
maH We see each other, the direct object is also the
subject.
but {-chuq} or {-‘egh} inform us that the subject is also the object.
Strictly speaking, TKD says nothing about the subject being the
object. It says "This suffix is used to indicate that the action
described by the verb affects the performer of the action, the
subject." It also says "the prefix set indicating 'no object' must
also be used." There is nothing there about the actual presence of
an object. "Affects the performer" semantically describes a direct
object.
It doesn’t say that the subject is also the indirect object.
And yet two of the examples on that very page demonstrate the
subject being the indirect object. yIja''egh Tell
yourself! pe'ja''egh Tell yourselves!
are examples in which the reflexivity indicates an indirect
object. (Strictly speaking, there are no subjects in these
sentences, since they're imperative.) Semantically, the person is
an indirect object.
Perhaps, the “object” can represent either a null-pronoun or invisible noun direct object, or even an invisible {-vaD}-appended pronoun?
What would be the point of inventing phantom words?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name