some info on {jatlh} and {jang}
There were a couple of lines that involved verbs of speaking in the paq'batlh. Instead of snipping out parts of various discussions from all over the place, I'm just going to summarise the conclusions. Besides the "verbs of speech" lines in the paq'batlh, I provided Dr. Okrand with the interview about verbs of speech in HolQeD 7:4, the msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand message dated 1997-06-29 which had more information on the grammar of {jatlh}, and pointed out the parts of TKD dealing with {jatlh}, {-lu'}, and {net}. In summary: * The thing that is said just goes next to the sentence with {jatlh} (or the verb of speech), with no {'e'}. (We already know this. I'm just establishing context for what follows.) * {jatlhlu'} (with no {'e'}) is correct when the speaker is unknown, indefinite, and/or general (and not {net jatlh}). Quote: <{jatlhlu'} could be translated "it is said," "so they say," "as one says," and so on.> * MO is still unclear on "indirect quotation". Quote: <The interview you cite [in HolQeD] is confusing because the phrase "indirect quotation" is used sloppily (by me).> * {jang} is a verb of speech in the paq'batlh. This is consistent with its usage in Power Klingon (1993), but contradicts an interview in HolQeD 7:4 (1998). {jang; jatlh [blah]} is not wrong, just a bit redundant. (MO has acknowledged that, in those days, he didn't have a way to easily access or search everything he's previously written and so sometimes contradicts himself. He expresses his appreciation for Klingonists who have made all of his previous writings easily searchable.) Clarifications to the msn post in more detail: * In the msn message, MO made repeated references to the first- and second-person without stating what happens in the third-person case. Quoting from the post: <It is not by any means a complete discussion of the several topics mentioned and I may have phrased things not as clearly as they might be phrased.> * To clarify, what he wrote also applies to the third-person when it makes sense and the meaning is clear in context, which might depend on the verb. For example, it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor. * In particular: <When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person object may be used.> This also applies to the third-person, if there's no possibility of confusion (e.g., if nothing else but Molor could've been the object of {lujang}). * Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'". In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first). * The reason he didn't mention the third-person case in the post was because of these complications (which don't exist for first- and second-person) and he had wanted to keep the post short. -- De'vID
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 03:09, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
There were a couple of lines that involved verbs of speaking in the paq'batlh. Instead of snipping out parts of various discussions from all over the place, I'm just going to summarise the conclusions. [...]
SuStel vIjangmeH QInvam vIqonpu'. The question came up on Discord whether one could write {SuStel vIjang} ({SuStel} being a name, the point being whether the third-person prefix trick is limited to pronouns or if any noun can be used). Going back through my discussions with Dr. Okrand, he wrote that {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} was fine as the object of {ja' qeylIS}, and that some possible objects of {ja'} are an audience ({tlhIngan tuqmey}), a spoken thing ({lutmey} or {mu'mey}), or a topic ({SengmeywIj}). You can even have both an audience (indirect object) and a spoken thing (direct object) together: {le'yo' lutmey juja'pu'} (which means {maHvaD lutmey Daja'pu'}). He didn't connect this to {jang} (different conversation, different passage in the paq'batlh), but assuming {jang} works like {ja'}, I think this confirms {SuStel vIjang} would be okay. The known verbs of speech are: {jatlh}, {ja'}, and {jang}. Incidentally, {jach} is not a verb of speech and requires {jach veqlargh jatlh <blah>}. (I guess beginners should take care not to say {tlhIngan vIjatlh}, "I speak to the Klingon" (= {tlhInganvaD jIjatlh}), when they mean {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh} "I speak Klingon". Also, looking back at the joke from Power Klingon, {lutlhob} seems to be an example of a third-person prefix trick (meaning {ghaHvaD tlhob chaH}), though we don't have enough examples of {tlhob} in canon to say for sure.) -- De'vID
I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread. But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a silly question as a warm up.. qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously) misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years. (And now the main body of the message follows) De'vID:
it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor.
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}? As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside, since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply, why was this clarification necessary to start with? De'vID:
The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations
Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this again? Am I missIng something here? De'vID:
Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'". In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence: tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you" So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak Klingon to him"? De'vID:
whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"? De'vID:
In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"? 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}
Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}? I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder, but apart the clarification that the prefix trick can be extended for the third person as well, I can't understand if there's something new I need to notice/understand in all this too. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/17/2022 8:15 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread.
I think the takeaway message here is not to think about strict rules when using verbs of speech. All this "clarification" has really muddled things.
But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a silly question as a warm up..
qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me
Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously) misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years.
It's more like /I said to you not to interrupt me./ There may be times when the difference between *ja'* and *jatlh* might be the medium of communication (e.g., one might *ja'* though text, but *jatlh* implies actual speech). But most of the time this and the version with *ja'* would probably be interchangeable.
De'vID:
it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor.
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}?
You can. It means /I speak Klingon./ It doesn't mean /I speak Klingon to him /because the default assumption is that when you have a verb prefix apparently agreeing with a sensible object, that prefix will be interpreted as agreeing with that object, not with some elided indirect object. I can see some word-play being possible in the ambiguity, but in general the default assumption is that the prefix trick is not being used, and this is only changed if the object and prefix don't make sense together in context.
As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside, since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply, why was this clarification necessary to start with?
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:
The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations
Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this again? Am I missIng something here?
Giving a thorough explanation sometimes involves restating that which is already known.
De'vID:
Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'". In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence:
tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you"
So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak Klingon to him"?
Since the default assumption is that an object and prefix matching means there is no prefix trick, this will only be interpreted as /They speak Klingon./ In theory, if I said *Holmey law' lujatlh,* then it might be interpreted as /They speak many languages to him,/ because the prefix is wrong otherwise. However, I'd hesitate to employ this, as it would look more like an error than a use of the prefix trick.
De'vID:
whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?
No, but it can mean /They speak Klingon./
De'vID:
In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"?
No, because the prefix naturally matches the object already.
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}
Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}?
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.
I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder, but apart the clarification that the prefix trick can be extended for the third person as well, I can't understand if there's something new I need to notice/understand in all this too.
The lesson to learn is: the prefix trick only works when it would be wrong or make no sense without the prefix trick. (It's basically Okrand saying, whatever I said before is right because the new rule is that anything that is wrong is actually right.). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 15:05, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I think the takeaway message here is not to think about strict rules when using verbs of speech.
All this "clarification" has really muddled things.
Really? What's muddled that was clear before?
De'vID:
it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor.
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}?
You can. It means *I speak Klingon.* It doesn't mean *I speak Klingon to him *because the default assumption is that when you have a verb prefix apparently agreeing with a sensible object, that prefix will be interpreted as agreeing with that object, not with some elided indirect object. I can see some word-play being possible in the ambiguity, but in general the default assumption is that the prefix trick is not being used, and this is only changed if the object and prefix don't make sense together in context.
I don't think any wordplay is even possible here. It's not just that we should assume the prefix trick isn't being used. I think it simply *can't* be used, because the compatibility of the prefix with the direct object rules it out.
So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak Klingon to him"?
Since the default assumption is that an object and prefix matching means there is no prefix trick, this will only be interpreted as *They speak Klingon.* In theory, if I said *Holmey law' lujatlh,* then it might be interpreted as *They speak many languages to him,* because the prefix is wrong otherwise. However, I'd hesitate to employ this, as it would look more like an error than a use of the prefix trick.
Maybe I didn't explain it clearly, but what I understood was that the prefix trick can't be used if there's any possibility that the direct and indirect object of the verb can be confused. That's why it works in first- and second-person, because you can't speak a person (i.e., the first- or second-person can't be the direct object of {jatlh}). But a third-person thing (like {SoQ} or {Hol}) can be the direct object of {jatlh}, and so if you use a prefix indicating third-person object, it would be interpreted as referring to that. I think {Holmey law' lujatlh} would be seen as an error.
De'vID:
whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?
No, but it can mean *They speak Klingon.*
Only in informal situations. In formal settings, the prefix {lu-} would be required for this meaning. (KGT p. 168)
The lesson to learn is: the prefix trick only works when it would be wrong or make no sense without the prefix trick. (It's basically Okrand saying, whatever I said before is right because the new rule is that anything that is wrong is actually right.).
I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously. What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now right? -- De'vID
On 6/17/2022 10:11 AM, De'vID wrote:
I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously.
What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now right?
You're taking this as Okrand having thought all this out ahead of time and just not explaining it very well. I don't believe it. I think he didn't think things out so meticulously before, and now he's retrofitting an explanation that covers all the apparent contradictions and exceptions we've talked about over the years and which you showed to him. Kudos to him for finding an explanation that appears to work for everything, and I have no doubt that the original explanation of the prefix trick WAS simplified in the act of writing it, but I don't for a moment think this is the rule he was following all along. I think it took someone who had all the previous information coordinated for him to get him to finally piece it all together. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 16:23, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/17/2022 10:11 AM, De'vID wrote:
I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously.
What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now right?
You're taking this as Okrand having thought all this out ahead of time and just not explaining it very well. I don't believe it.
I don't believe that he thought it through meticulously from the beginning, either. I think it's more likely that he played rather fast and loose with verb prefixes in sentences like {tIqwIj Sa'angnIS} because he saw the English "I must show you" and looked up "I-you" {Sa-}, and that after doing this several times a pattern emerged which could be explained by the "prefix trick" retroactively.
I think he didn't think things out so meticulously before, and now he's retrofitting an explanation that covers all the apparent contradictions and exceptions we've talked about over the years and which you showed to him. Kudos to him for finding an explanation that appears to work for everything, and I have no doubt that the original explanation of the prefix trick WAS simplified in the act of writing it, but I don't for a moment think this is the rule he was following all along. I think it took someone who had all the previous information coordinated for him to get him to finally piece it all together.
Could be. It's clear (at least to me) that in writing the msn post, he *did* think about the third-person case, and then decided to avoid it altogether because he'd realised that it would be convoluted. -- De'vID
I agree with SuStel. I’ll go farther and share that I think that {jatlh} originally was supposed to take languages or speeches as object and {ja’} was originally supposed to have people as object (hence {ja’chuq} is a word in the word list and {jatlhchuq} is not), but in canon, Okrand forgot this and created examples that didn’t follow his own original thought, so things loosened up. There’s a higher priority of making canon correct than there is for making the language consistent or have clear rules. Given how inconsistent natural languages are, I think that Okrand sees this as a good thing because he doesn’t want Klingon to be artificially consistent. In natural languages, people screw up and others adopt the mistake, and it stops being a mistake. It just becomes the way the language is now, so deal with it. I liked the language when it was more consistent, but I’m not interested in maintaining my own dialect, so I just try to keep up and I accept that I screw up from time to time. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 17, 2022, at 10:23 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/17/2022 10:11 AM, De'vID wrote:
I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously.
What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now right?
You're taking this as Okrand having thought all this out ahead of time and just not explaining it very well. I don't believe it. I think he didn't think things out so meticulously before, and now he's retrofitting an explanation that covers all the apparent contradictions and exceptions we've talked about over the years and which you showed to him. Kudos to him for finding an explanation that appears to work for everything, and I have no doubt that the original explanation of the prefix trick WAS simplified in the act of writing it, but I don't for a moment think this is the rule he was following all along. I think it took someone who had all the previous information coordinated for him to get him to finally piece it all together.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/17/2022 12:48 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I’ll go farther and share that I think that {jatlh} originally was supposed to take languages or speeches as object and {ja’} was originally supposed to have people as object (hence {ja’chuq} is a word in the word list and {jatlhchuq} is not),
I don't think so. I think *ja'* being glossed /tell, report/ suggests that something like a status report was always a possible meaning. This is backed up by the fact that one of the lines in /Star Trek III/ is Kruge saying "Report status!" and both *ja'* and *Dotlh* are in the original edition of the dictionary. I'll bet that Okrand had a translated version at hand just in case it was asked for: *Dotlh ja'!* I also think that *qaja'pu'* is an early sign of Okrand either not thinking about or (possibly intentionally) not distinguishing between direct and indirect objects in Klingon. I don't think it was ever the case that the one and only possible object of *ja'* is the entity being spoken to. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I thought that long ago, we concluded that the prefix trick only worked with first or second person object implied by the prefix specifically because, as you say, if the prefix makes sense to refer to the direct object, the prefix is for the direct object, not an implied indirect object. chab qanob. chab chonob. I have not seen an instance where a third-person-object prefix worked for the prefix trick. I don’t think any context could make a prefix trick work with a third person indirect object. Of course, I’m quite often wrong. Like the James Taylor song, “That’s Why I’m Here." pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 17, 2022, at 9:05 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/17/2022 8:15 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread. I think the takeaway message here is not to think about strict rules when using verbs of speech.
All this "clarification" has really muddled things.
But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a silly question as a warm up..
qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me
Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously) misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years. It's more like I said to you not to interrupt me. There may be times when the difference between ja' and jatlh might be the medium of communication (e.g., one might ja' though text, but jatlh implies actual speech). But most of the time this and the version with ja' would probably be interchangeable.
De'vID:
it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor.
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}? You can. It means I speak Klingon. It doesn't mean I speak Klingon to him because the default assumption is that when you have a verb prefix apparently agreeing with a sensible object, that prefix will be interpreted as agreeing with that object, not with some elided indirect object. I can see some word-play being possible in the ambiguity, but in general the default assumption is that the prefix trick is not being used, and this is only changed if the object and prefix don't make sense together in context.
As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside, since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply, why was this clarification necessary to start with? 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:
The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations
Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this again? Am I missIng something here? Giving a thorough explanation sometimes involves restating that which is already known.
De'vID:
Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'". In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence:
tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you"
So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak Klingon to him"? Since the default assumption is that an object and prefix matching means there is no prefix trick, this will only be interpreted as They speak Klingon. In theory, if I said Holmey law' lujatlh, then it might be interpreted as They speak many languages to him, because the prefix is wrong otherwise. However, I'd hesitate to employ this, as it would look more like an error than a use of the prefix trick.
De'vID:
whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"? No, but it can mean They speak Klingon.
De'vID:
In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"? No, because the prefix naturally matches the object already.
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}
Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}? 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.
I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder, but apart the clarification that the prefix trick can be extended for the third person as well, I can't understand if there's something new I need to notice/understand in all this too. The lesson to learn is: the prefix trick only works when it would be wrong or make no sense without the prefix trick. (It's basically Okrand saying, whatever I said before is right because the new rule is that anything that is wrong is actually right.).
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/17/2022 12:40 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I thought that long ago, we concluded that the prefix trick only worked with first or second person object implied by the prefix specifically because, as you say, if the prefix makes sense to refer to the direct object, the prefix is for the direct object, not an implied indirect object.
chab qanob. chab chonob.
I have not seen an instance where a third-person-object prefix worked for the prefix trick. I don’t think any context could make a prefix trick work with a third person indirect object.
Of course, I’m quite often wrong. Like the James Taylor song, “That’s Why I’m Here."
Go back and read the previous threads on this. Okrand said that when he only addressed first- and second-person objects, he was simplifying, and that it does work with third-person objects provided it's unambiguous that the object referred to by the prefix can't reasonably be the direct object of the verb. This is new information. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 14:15, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't understand what it is I'm supposed to understand from this thread.
But before I write what it is I don't understand, here's a silly question as a warm up..
qajatlhpu' HIqaghQo' I told you not to interrupt me
Is this correct? Something tells me that I was (seriously) misunderstanding {jatlh} all those years.
I would translate it as "I said to you" and not "I told you", but this seems fine based both on {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'} from TKD and {qajatlh} from the msn post of 1997-06-29.
(And now the main body of the message follows)
De'vID:
it would be impossible to use the prefix trick on a sentence like "I speak Klingon to him" (because {vI-} already indicates the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol} "Klingon", and thus cannot indicate the indirect object, {ghaH} "him"). But {[ghaH] lujang} "they answer him" is fine in the paq'batlh, because the only possible object in context is Molor.
If the point of this thread is that the prefix trick *can* be applied to the third person as well, then -if the context is clear- why couldn't we write {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}?
You can write it, but it means "I speak Klingon", "I speak the Klingon language". There's no possible context in which it would be clear that {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh} means "I speak Klingon to him". For that, you'd need to write {ghaHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}. The reason that there's no ambiguity in the first- and second-person cases is that "you", "I/me", or "we/us" can't be a thing which is spoken. Thus, if a prefix indicating first- or second-person object is used with {jatlh}, that must indicate the listener.
As far as the {ghaH lujang} goes, paq'batlh aside, since the only object {jang} can take is a/the person hearing the reply, why was this clarification necessary to start with?
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.
De'vID:
The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations
Didn't we know that already? Why did 'oqranD need to say this again? Am I missIng something here?
Yes, you're missing the fact that this is a quote from the original msn post from which we learned that {jatlh} can be used to give direct quotations. Was it not clear that the section "Clarifications to the msn post in more detail" quotes from that post, and then follows the quote with the clarification?
De'vID:
Also: <The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations... If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating "no object" is used>. Again, this applies to the third person as well. {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} means "they speak Klingon", whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'". In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
In the relevant msn message, there's the sentence:
tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you"
So, and since the prefix trick has been extended to the third person as well, why can't the {tlhIngan Hol lujatlh} mean too "the speak Klingon to him"?
Because the direct object, {tlhIngan Hol}, is a thing that is spoken. In {tlhIngan Hol qajatlh}, the {qa-} does not match the direct object {tlhIngan Hol}, and thus "you" must be the indirect object. In {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh}, the {vI-} matches the direct object {tlhIngan Hol}, and therefore you can't interpret it to be referring to an unstated indirect object {ghaH}. De'vID:
whereas {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [chaH]} means "they say, 'Klingon language'
Can't this mean too "the speak Klingon to them"?
No.
De'vID:
In the singular case, {tlhIngan Hol jatlh [ghaH]}, the prefix does not distinguish between "she speaks Klingon" and "she says, 'Klingon language'" (but normally it would be understood as the first).
Again, can't this mean too "she speaks klingon to them"?
No. 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}
Didn't we know that already from the tkd's {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}?
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).
I know that these may be truly ridiculous things to wonder, but apart the clarification that the prefix trick can be extended for the third person as well, I can't understand if there's something new I need to notice/understand in all this too.
I don't think it's been "extended" so much as "applicable all along, but hadn't been explained explicitly". -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
SuStel -
Will Martin