I wrote:
>     What do you think about:
>     {torghvaD taj'e' matlh nobmoH Qugh}

Am 08.12.2016 um 13:49 schrieb terrence.donnelly:

"So far as the knife is concerned, Kruge
makes Torg give Maltz"?

SuStel wrote:
> I don't see two objects. I see a beneficiary/indirect object (not an
> object in the Klingon sentence position way), a topic (not an object),
> and *matlh* (an object). I read this sentence as /as for knives, Kruge
> makes Torg give Maltz/ (he is handing Maltz over).

I was pretty sure that this phrase was not so clearly correct an cause trouble.

Basically I was thinking of the english phrase:

"Kruge makes Maltz give Torg the knife"
Problem: "give torg"

Whats confusing is the order of the words, or the amount of objects

{matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give"
We all agree on that, right?

Not necessarily. paq'batlh gives us the sentence ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH I will... teach him life and death. By the same pattern, one can say that matlh nobmoH Qugh means Kruge causes (someone) to give Maltz (to someone). But I think it can ALSO mean Kruge causes Maltz to give.

Question: what does maltz give? taj!

Let's tryx to throw in the question word in the existing sentence

{nuq matlh nobmoH Qugh} = "Kruge causes Maltz to give WHAT?"

Okay or not?? Where would be the better place for the word to stand?

Yes, this is the classic problem, and the way Okrand has resolved it is has been to (1) make the causer the subject, (2) make the causee the indirect object with -vaD, and (3) keep the thing acted upon as the direct object.

Following Okrand's pattern, the sentence would be matlhvaD nuq nobmoH Qugh.

The reasoning behind this has not been explained to us, but I think it goes as follows: adding -moH makes the subject into the causer of the action rather than the doer of the action (as we are told in its description). -moH does not change the meaning of "object" as thing the action is done to ("direct object"), so whatever was there before remains there. HOWEVER, the doer of the action now has no grammatical position. It gets as "close" to the object position as it can. If there is no direct object in the object position, the doer can go there; if that position is filled the doer becomes an "indirect object" with -vaD.

THat's why I say that nob has two objects: malt is caused to give, and the knife is the thing given (please no lesson about indirect or direct object now, stay on the topic [no pun intended])

Direct and indirect objects are at the heart of this issue.

Only few days ago, we found an example (I think from SuStel), telling us that the topicalized noun with {-'e'} may stand at different place than usual.
HaqwI''e' DaH yISam
-->
{taj'e' DaH yInob}

As for the knife, give it now.
-->
As for the knife, make maltz give it now.
taj'e', matlh nobmoH Qugh
= "As for the knife, Kruge causes Maltz to give"

Adding torghvaD just tell you to whom the knife is given:

taj'e', torghvaD matlh nobmoH Qugh
or
torghvaD taj'e'matlh nobmoH Qugh

= "As for the knife, Kruge causes Maltz to give for the benefit of Torg"

I still think it works, although I agree it looks very awkward.

According to Okrand's pattern, in your sentence Qugh is the causer, torgh is the doer, and matlh is the done-to. Kruge makes Torg give Maltz.

I think, ultimately, it all comes down to Klingon "objects" not always being exactly "direct objects." They're direct or indirect as needed, with direct having dominance over indirect. Whether you interpret "direct object" as "doer of the action" or "causee" depends on whether the former already exists.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name