On 8/15/2019 12:27 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
yIja''egh
(an example from TKD 4.2.1)
-- ghunchu'wI'
On Aug 15, 2019, at 12:17 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
In canon, Okrand has only ever used a word like *lut* as the object of *ja'.* He has never explicitly used a person as its object.
Hang on. I found a better example than that. *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*/Kahless tells his brother and father/ (PB) But /paq'batlh/ also has *SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe'*/I cannot speak of my tragedies,/ *chaHvaD lut ja'*/told them his tale,/ *lut ja'taHvIS Hem rewbe'*/The people tell the tales with pride,/*le'yo' lutmey juja'pu'mo' qatlho'*/I think you, for your stories of pride/ (Hey, it's an example of someone saying *qatlho'*), *DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'*/Now I will tell you why I am here,/ *'ej mu'meyvam ja'*/And spoke these words,/ *qeylISvaD mu'meyvam ja'ta' molor qotar je*/This is what Kotar and Molor / Have said to Kahless,/ *ghIq pagh ja'taHvIS*/Then without a word,/ *quv HIja'chuqQo'*/Don't speak to me of honor!/ So going by /paq'batlh,/ it is possible to use a person as the object of *ja',* but it's FAR more common to use the words or information told as the object. My guess: the "natural" object of *ja'* is the direct object, the information or words told. When using a direct object, any indirect object must be explicitly marked with *-vaD.* But when there is no explicit direct object, the indirect object, the entity to whom something is told, can sit in the object position. Much like the way *-moH* seems to work with objects. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name