"Prefix trick" with third-person verb prefixes
I was reading the *paq'raD* and I came along with the sentence *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* (*paq'raD* 6, 1), so I checked out again what was published here on June 2022 about the "prefix trick" being used with third-person verb prefixes, and I have some questions. If I'm not mistaken, the "prefix trick" means that the verb prefix refers to the indirect object and not, as usual, to the direct object of the verb, and can *only* be used if there is no other possible interpretation of the prefix that makes sense. If there were any other possible interpretation, that interpretation would apply, not the "prefix trick". 1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right? 2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something? 3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"? How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?). 4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor"). Thank you for your help!
You don’t seem to understand the prefix trick at all. In English, I can say, “I gave the apple to you,” or I can say, “I gave you the apple.” That’s really the core of the prefix trick in Klingon. In either case, the apple is the direct object of the verb “gave” and “you" is the indirect object. If you just go by strict rules of English grammar and extract “I gave you…” out of the sentence, you’d tend to assume that “you" is the direct object, but seeing the whole sentence, you know better. {SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.} The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object (when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the examples in English. {Holmey law’ lujatlh} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just bad grammar. There is no way to interpret it as the prefix trick. You made a mistake with the prefix because there’s no way to make the subject plural and the direct object singular in that sentence. You can’t imply any indirect object from this mistake. For one thing, plurality doesn’t tend to play into the prefix trick. The prefix trick typically uses “person” to reveal itself. First or second person subject and an indicated second or first person direct object shown in the prefix, but an explicit noun in the 3rd person in the word-order position of direct object. That’s the classic prefix trick. The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!” {loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error. The prefix {lu-} just gets forgotten a lot. I mean, A LOT! Like, why even pretend that it exists? It’s basically like saying, “Who do you trust?” Instead of “Whom do you trust.” The first one is grammatically wrong, and it bothers some people, but most people wouldn’t even notice. Another hint: Direct quotation in Klingon reliably does not use the prefix trick because it uses one sentence to describe that speech happens, and the quotation is given total grammatical independence. It’s not really like Sentence As Object. There is nothing in the sentence of speech that points to the quotation. They just stand next to each other. The order of these two sentences is completely optional. Quote. He said. He said. Quote. The quotation is neither the direct object nor the indirect object of the sentence of speech. There is no place in this pairing of sentences for the prefix trick to be used. Does this help? Can anyone else explain this better? Is there something here that I’m missing? pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Sep 30, 2024, at 5:15 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I was reading the *paq'raD* and I came along with the sentence *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* (*paq'raD* 6, 1), so I checked out again what was published here on June 2022 about the "prefix trick" being used with third-person verb prefixes, and I have some questions.
If I'm not mistaken, the "prefix trick" means that the verb prefix refers to the indirect object and not, as usual, to the direct object of the verb, and can *only* be used if there is no other possible interpretation of the prefix that makes sense. If there were any other possible interpretation, that interpretation would apply, not the "prefix trick".
1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?
2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something?
3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"? How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?).
4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor").
Thank you for your help! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/30/2024 11:08 PM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the prefix trick at all.
In English, I can say, “I gave the apple to you,” or I can say, “I gave you the apple.” That’s really the core of the prefix trick in Klingon. In either case, the apple is the direct object of the verb “gave” and “you" is the indirect object. If you just go by strict rules of English grammar and extract “I gave you…” out of the sentence, you’d tend to assume that “you" is the direct object, but seeing the whole sentence, you know better.
The grammars of English and Klingon in this example are completely different. First let's look at the English. There are two ways we can say this: /I gave the apple to you./ Here, /the apple/ is the direct object. There is no indirect object. Instead, we have a preposition, /to,/ which has an object, /you./ The /you/ is /not/ the indirect object of the verb /gave./ /I gave you the apple./ Here, /the apple/ remains the direct object, but /you/ is now the indirect object. In English, the indirect object comes between the verb and the direct object. Now for Klingon. Here, we also have two ways to say this: *SoHvaD 'epIl naH vInoppu'.* Here, *'epIl naH* is the /object/ (never mind direct or indirect; it's the "object"). *SoHvaD* is the beneficiary. /Semantically,/ these words play the same roles as the direct and indirect objects, respectively, in English, but in Klingon the roles are "object" and "beneficiary." *'epIl naH qanobpu'.* Here, *'epIl naH* remains the object (again, never mind worrying about direct or indirect; it's the "object"), but the beneficary has disappeared. Instead, we get the prefix trick, using a prefix that does not agree with the object. This tells us that the prefix trick is being used, and it tells us that the indirect object of the sentence, what would normally be the beneficiary, is *SoH.*
{SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.}
The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object (when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the examples in English.
The word that comes before the verb is the "object," not the "direct object." Sometimes you can distinguish the English role of direct or indirect object for the Klingon "object," but to Klingon, it's just an "object."
For one thing, plurality doesn’t tend to play into the prefix trick. The prefix trick typically uses “person” to reveal itself. First or second person subject and an indicated second or first person direct object shown in the prefix, but an explicit noun in the 3rd person in the word-order position of direct object. That’s the classic prefix trick.
Except our definition of the prefix trick was expanded a couple of years ago. See the message the OP referenced. Specifically, if there's no possibility of confusion, third-person prefixes may also be used for the prefix trick. The given example is *lujang* for /they answer him./ We were also told that the earlier revelation about the prefix trick, the one specifying first- and second-person object prefixes, was simplified for brevity.
The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!”
Explicit nouns are the actual objects; prefixes merely /agree/ with objects. Assuming it's not an error, if the prefix doesn't agree with the object that's sitting right there, then it is agreeing with an unstated indirect object.
{loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error.
It is not an error. It is evidence that Klingon verbs take "objects" as arguments, not "direct objects." You have never let go of this desperate idea that Klingon verb arguments are strictly split between direct and indirect objects. They're not. Direct and indirect object are not syntactic roles in Klingon; they are syntactic roles in English that are sometimes used to describe things that are happening semantically in Klingon. The relevant Klingon syntactic roles in this topic are "object" and "beneficiary." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
In line, below. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Oct 1, 2024, at 10:03 AM, SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 9/30/2024 11:08 PM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
You don’t seem to understand the prefix trick at all.
In English, I can say, “I gave the apple to you,” or I can say, “I gave you the apple.” That’s really the core of the prefix trick in Klingon. In either case, the apple is the direct object of the verb “gave” and “you" is the indirect object. If you just go by strict rules of English grammar and extract “I gave you…” out of the sentence, you’d tend to assume that “you" is the direct object, but seeing the whole sentence, you know better. The grammars of English and Klingon in this example are completely different.
The common interpretation of the grammar is, indeed, completely different. Meanwhile, prepositional concepts and objects, direct and indirect, are often arbitrary, depending on the verb. In this case, “I gave the apple to you,” and “I gave you the apple,” have exactly the same meaning, even though “to you” expresses the indirect object as a prepositional phrase, while the plain “you” preceding “apple” expresses it as nothing that can be explained in any way except as indirect object. Word order alone tells you it’s the indirect object. Different verbs use different prepositions (including what we might call the “null” preposition, if we were to use Klingon grammatical terms) to link them to their direct and indirect objects. It’s the “The Moon orbits the Earth,” vs. “The Moon orbits around the Earth,” and “The Moon goes around the Earth,” but it can’t be “The Moon Goes the Earth,” thing.
First let's look at the English. There are two ways we can say this:
I gave the apple to you.
Here, the apple is the direct object. There is no indirect object. Instead, we have a preposition, to, which has an object, you. The you is not the indirect object of the verb gave.
I gave you the apple.
Here, the apple remains the direct object, but you is now the indirect object. In English, the indirect object comes between the verb and the direct object.
Now for Klingon. Here, we also have two ways to say this:
SoHvaD 'epIl naH vInoppu'.
Here, 'epIl naH is the object (never mind direct or indirect; it's the "object"). SoHvaD is the beneficiary. Semantically, these words play the same roles as the direct and indirect objects, respectively, in English, but in Klingon the roles are "object" and "beneficiary."
'epIl naH qanobpu'.
Here, 'epIl naH remains the object (again, never mind worrying about direct or indirect; it's the "object"), but the beneficary has disappeared. Instead, we get the prefix trick, using a prefix that does not agree with the object. This tells us that the prefix trick is being used, and it tells us that the indirect object of the sentence, what would normally be the beneficiary, is SoH.
The validity of your argument doesn’t invalidate mine. We both know that both versions of the sentences in question, in English and in Klingon have identical meaning. The grammarians who analyze these sentences have invented grammatical rules to explain what the words are doing, and that analysis could have easily been arbitrarily different. Actual languages don’t follow rules. They merely imply them. It’s like a bridge you can’t see the structure of. You see that it’s standing. Obviously, it is supported. You come up with a theoretical structure that could hold up the bridge, and so long as every bridge you find could be held up by the theoretical structure you have invented, you assume that the structure is a valid description of what is holding up the bridge. Meanwhile, it’s excellently possible that a completely different structure is doing the work, and you might find a bridge tomorrow that can’t be held up by the structural rules you’ve been using. You get a glimpse of the difference between the real bridge and the one you had imagined. All it takes is for Okrand to give you a new, canon sentence that violates what you thought was the grammar. Nobody should pretend this has never happened.
{SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.}
The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object (when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the examples in English. The word that comes before the verb is the "object," not the "direct object." Sometimes you can distinguish the English role of direct or indirect object for the Klingon "object," but to Klingon, it's just an "object."
You like to bring this up, except when you like to use the term “direct object”, yourself.
For one thing, plurality doesn’t tend to play into the prefix trick. The prefix trick typically uses “person” to reveal itself. First or second person subject and an indicated second or first person direct object shown in the prefix, but an explicit noun in the 3rd person in the word-order position of direct object. That’s the classic prefix trick. Except our definition of the prefix trick was expanded a couple of years ago. See the message the OP referenced. Specifically, if there's no possibility of confusion, third-person prefixes may also be used for the prefix trick. The given example is lujang for they answer him.
We were also told that the earlier revelation about the prefix trick, the one specifying first- and second-person object prefixes, was simplified for brevity.
And this is exactly what I was just talking about. Full disclosure, I was using 1st & 2nd person for the same reason. It is SO much more common for the prefix trick to be used when 1st or 2nd person is the subject and the indirect object, but the direct object is 3rd person, that in terms of learning how to use the prefix trick and recognize it, acting as if that were the whole thing would leave you excellently capable of using and recognizing the prefix trick more than 90% of the time, and after you’ve successfully gotten that under your belt, you’d be ready to take on {‘epIl naH Dunob} and just see that it works. I’ve never encountered plurality alone marking the indirect object among 3rd person direct and indirect object. I hadn’t considered it. If you say Okrand says it’s fine, then obviously it’s fine. There he goes, changing the bridge. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s his bridge. Thanks for the update. Klingon grammar just got a little harder. {wejpuH.}
The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!” Explicit nouns are the actual objects; prefixes merely agree with objects. Assuming it's not an error, if the prefix doesn't agree with the object that's sitting right there, then it is agreeing with an unstated indirect object.
Given how heavily you’d be relying on context to identify the indirect object in such a case, compared to how easy it is to identify the 1st or 2nd person indirect object, I think I can do just fine never using this new grammar example. I’d probably just point to the indirect object and say the sentence without the prefix trick, or use {-‘e’} or {-vaD} on the indirect object. It’s also such a limited extension of what we’ve known for so long, given the limited differentiation of explicit 3rd person plurality in the prefix set. Most of the time you’d like to use it, you can’t because the direct object and indirect object would have the same plurality and person, or would have a pairing for which there is no different prefix. You’d be especially clever to use this well every rare now and then, but is it really useful while actually speaking Klingon? And this, in the same language where screwing up the use or omission of {lu-} is so common as for it to be laughable for you to rely on it being done right in order to notice that, “Oh! I get it! You didn’t use it wrong! You are doing the prefix trick!" That’s what inspires the {wejpuH} response. Here, among Klingon speakers you are more likely to have puzzled looks because they think you used the prefix wrong, or they’ll just ignore what they thought was your mistake. It would be quite rare that someone would interpret this use of the prefix trick correctly.
{loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error. It is not an error. It is evidence that Klingon verbs take "objects" as arguments, not "direct objects." You have never let go of this desperate idea that Klingon verb arguments are strictly split between direct and indirect objects. They're not. Direct and indirect object are not syntactic roles in Klingon; they are syntactic roles in English that are sometimes used to describe things that are happening semantically in Klingon. The relevant Klingon syntactic roles in this topic are "object" and "beneficiary.”
If you say so, it must be true. Thanks for the clarification. For me, “direct object” and “indirect object” are merely useful terms to explain different kinds of objects, similar to the way Klingon separates some objects out explicitly as beneficiary, topic/focus, locative, etc. Yes, I understand that “direct object” is not specially different from the other kinds of objects. The only thing that marks it as different is… the lack of any marker. No Type 5 suffix. It is “marked” by word order alone, and that can be confusing because of the collision of clauses in a complex sentence, or because of noun-noun constructions, and I’m sure there are other settings in which it is obscure. You like to think that I’m seeing things wrong and you are seeing things right. I think many times, we see things more alike than you feel. We just hang up on differences of description and focus. I genuinely thank you for opening my understanding of Okrand’s newer thoughts on the prefix trick. Otherwise, I’d continue on, in ignorance of one of the least useful grammatical structures I’ve ever encountered in Klingon: The prefix trick with both direct and indirect objects being 3rd person. ghojlaH chargwhI’. pab ghantoHmey chu’ lughojmoH SuStel ‘oqranD je.
-- 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 10/1/2024 12:51 PM, Will Martin via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Different verbs use different prepositions (including what we might call the “null” preposition, if we were to use Klingon grammatical terms) to link them to their direct and indirect objects. It’s the “The Moon orbits the Earth,” vs. “The Moon orbits around the Earth,” and “The Moon goes around the Earth,” but it can’t be “The Moon Goes the Earth,” thing.
No, prepositions do not link verbs with their direct or indirect objects. The object of a preposition is not an argument to the verb; it is an argument to the preposition. In /The moon goes around the earth,/ /the earth/ is not an argument of /goes./ It's not a direct or indirect object. /The earth/ is the object of /around./
The validity of your argument doesn’t invalidate mine. We both know that both versions of the sentences in question, in English and in Klingon have identical meaning. The grammarians who analyze these sentences have invented grammatical rules to explain what the words are doing, and that analysis could have easily been arbitrarily different. Actual languages don’t follow rules. They merely imply them.
Grammarians have invented different grammatical rules for how these sentences work because these sentences work in different ways. Grammatical rules are not arbitrary: they attempt to describe the languages they're about. If a language works a certain way, its grammar will look a certain way. Semantic and syntax really are two different things, no matter how much you want to ignore that difference.
{SoHvaD chab vInob. chab qanob.}
The prefix {qa-} suggests that “you" is the direct object (when “you” is actually the indirect object), similar to the examples in English.
The word that comes before the verb is the "object," not the "direct object." Sometimes you can distinguish the English role of direct or indirect object for the Klingon "object," but to Klingon, it's just an "object."
You like to bring this up, except when you like to use the term “direct object”, yourself.
Which I explained. You can use the terms "direct object" and "indirect object" as they apply in English to describe the /semantics/ of what's happening in Klingon. But /syntactically,/ you can't. Syntactically, Klingon has objects and beneficiaries, not direct objects and indirect objects. For example: you'll twist yourself in knots trying to explain how the canonical sentences *SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe'* /I cannot speak of my tragedies/ and *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*/Kahless tells his father and brother/ can coexist in a single canonical document. If you just think in terms of "direct objects," what's the proper direct object of *ja'*? Is it the person being told something or the something that's being told? Why does it keep changing? You don't have to worry about that when you realize that "direct object" is not a syntactic role in Klingon. There are just "objects." In *SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe',* we have a sentence where the object happens to be what in English we would consider to be the direct object. In *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS,* we have a sentence where the object happens to be what English would consider to be the indirect object. It's no big deal if you stop sticking the words "direct" and "indirect" into the sentence where they weren't asked for. Unless you're actually describing the difference between a thing acted upon and a thing for which an action is performed, you don't need those terms. This is why I sometimes turn to the words /patient, theme, recipient,/ and /beneficiary:/ to make it plain that I'm talking about a semantic role, not a syntactic one, because people get confused by how direct and indirect objects can be a syntactic role in one language and a semantic one in another.
Full disclosure, I was using 1st & 2nd person for the same reason. It is SO much more common for the prefix trick to be used when 1st or 2nd person is the subject and the indirect object, but the direct object is 3rd person, that in terms of learning how to use the prefix trick and recognize it, acting as if that were the whole thing would leave you excellently capable of using and recognizing the prefix trick more than 90% of the time, and after you’ve successfully gotten that under your belt, you’d be ready to take on {‘epIl naH Dunob} and just see that it works.
Sure, but Luis's question was specifically going beyond a beginner's understanding of the prefix trick and into exactly these waters.
I’ve never encountered plurality alone marking the indirect object among 3rd person direct and indirect object. I hadn’t considered it. If you say Okrand says it’s fine, then obviously it’s fine. There he goes, changing the bridge. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s his bridge. Thanks for the update. Klingon grammar just got a little harder. {wejpuH.}
Okrand didn't say that particular thing was fine. He said that you can use the prefix trick in the third person when it makes sense and when the meaning is clear. There's no clear-cut rule telling us when it's okay. It depends on the verb, it depends on the context, it depends on the audience. If you come across *tlhIngan Hol lujatlh chaH* and you have doubts as to whether it means /They speak Klingon/ or /They say "Klingon language" to him,/ then it's not an appropriate use of the prefix trick because the meaning is not clear. Since *Hol* and *jatlh* are so commonly associated with *Hol jatlh* /speak a language,/ I would not expect this sentence to be a good use of the prefix trick if the meaning was supposed to be /They say "Klingon language" to him./
The prefix says “I [verb] you” or “You [verb] me”, but there’s an extra unmarked noun before the verb jumping up and down, yelling, “I’m the real direct object!”
Explicit nouns are the actual objects; prefixes merely /agree/ with objects. Assuming it's not an error, if the prefix doesn't agree with the object that's sitting right there, then it is agreeing with an unstated indirect object.
Given how heavily you’d be relying on context to identify the indirect object in such a case, compared to how easy it is to identify the 1st or 2nd person indirect object, I think I can do just fine never using this new grammar example. I’d probably just point to the indirect object and say the sentence without the prefix trick, or use {-‘e’} or {-vaD} on the indirect object.
*shrug*
It’s also such a limited extension of what we’ve known for so long, given the limited differentiation of explicit 3rd person plurality in the prefix set. Most of the time you’d like to use it, you can’t because the direct object and indirect object would have the same plurality and person, or would have a pairing for which there is no different prefix. You’d be especially clever to use this well every rare now and then, but is it really useful while actually speaking Klingon?
The rule is you can do it when it makes sense and when the meaning is clear. Therefore, you don't have to be particularly clever at saying it or understanding it. As it's been described to us, if it's not easy, it's not appropriate.
That’s what inspires the {wejpuH} response. Here, among Klingon speakers you are more likely to have puzzled looks because they think you used the prefix wrong, or they’ll just ignore what they thought was your mistake. It would be quite rare that someone would interpret this use of the prefix trick correctly.
Then it's not an appropriate use of the prefix trick. As Okrand said.
{loDnI’Daj vavDaj je ja’ qeylIS} is not an example of the prefix trick. It’s just a common Klingon grammatical error.
It is not an error. It is evidence that Klingon verbs take "objects" as arguments, not "direct objects." You have never let go of this desperate idea that Klingon verb arguments are strictly split between direct and indirect objects. They're not. Direct and indirect object are not syntactic roles in Klingon; they are syntactic roles in English that are sometimes used to describe things that are happening semantically in Klingon. The relevant Klingon syntactic roles in this topic are "object" and "beneficiary.”
If you say so, it must be true. Thanks for the clarification.
It's true because it's in /paq'batlh/ and survived into the second edition without change. Not because I say so.
For me, “direct object” and “indirect object” are merely useful terms to explain different kinds of objects, similar to the way Klingon separates some objects out explicitly as beneficiary, topic/focus, locative, etc.
Klingon calls beneficiary, topic, focus, and locative "syntactic" roles, because in Klingon they are. They are syntactic markers in Klingon: you mark nouns with suffixes to indicate these roles. Klingon has other syntactic roles called "object" and "subject." These are indicated by their positions before and after a verb in a verbal clause, not by a suffix. With syntax, you can know the roles of each word without knowing what the word means. If I say *XvaD YDaq O V S'e',* we have a wealth of syntactic knowledge without any semantic information. We know that S, and only S, does *V* on or intended for O (we don't know for sure which), at or around Y, for the benefit of X. We have no idea what's going on, but we do know the relationships of all the words to each other. That's syntax. In that example, we don't know for sure whether A is a direct object or an indirect object. In Klingon, the distinction doesn't really matter. *O V S* simply means that S does something on or intended for O. Examples with meaning are *tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh jIH* (I act upon the Klingon language by speaking it), where O is a direct object; and *vavDaj ja' ghaH* (his act is intended for his father, which he performs by telling), where O is an indirect object. O is just an "object." Klingon doesn't syntactically distinguish between direct and indirect object this way. It distinguishes between object and beneficiary, and one /semantic/ role of the beneficiary is that of indirect object: the entity who "receives" the action.
Yes, I understand that “direct object” is not specially different from the other kinds of objects. The only thing that marks it as different is… the lack of any marker. No Type 5 suffix. It is “marked” by word order alone, and that can be confusing because of the collision of clauses in a complex sentence, or because of noun-noun constructions, and I’m sure there are other settings in which it is obscure.
And the point is that a noun in the O position without any suffix is not /always/ a direct object. Sometimes it is an indirect object. It is especially common for prefix agreeing without any explicit noun to indicate an indirect object, as in *qaja'pu'*/I told you./ The difference is /semantic,/ so making /syntactic/ rules about direct and indirect objects to try to explain the prefix trick won't work. (The same goes for *-moH* sentences.)
I genuinely thank you for opening my understanding of Okrand’s newer thoughts on the prefix trick.
See them here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063018.html
pab ghantoHmey chu’ lughojmoH SuStel ‘oqranD je. Given the context of the above conversation and your misapprehension that it has to do with mismatching plurals, the very fact that this ordinarily wouldn't work makes it work. Since your audience /knows/ what you're doing when you do this, it's an appropriate use. If you just walked up to someone and said it without context, it wouldn't be appropriate, because it would be confusing. Your sarcastic sendoff demonstrates the entire point.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 9/30/2024 5:15 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?
Right.
2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here:http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something?
Understand that no one in that thread was speaking in terms of absolute rules. I was talking about ambiguity and uncertain interpretations. De'vID was a little more certain that *Holmey law' lujatlh* would just be considered an error.
3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"?
No.
How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?).
The prefix trick is only used when the indirect object is /not/ said explicitly. It's either *SoHvaD paq vInob* or *paq qanob.* I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that *SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction. When dealing with directions and areas, we get constructions like *jIH 'em* /area behind me./ I believe we say things like *jIH 'em* instead of *'emwIj* because I do not actually possess *'em,* so possessive suffixes are inappropriate. So while phrases like *SoH paq* /you book/ aren't going to be normal, they would still be understood in the same way: it's not *paqlIj* /your book;/ a *SoH paq* is an extraordinary way to refer to a book about you. It's not good grammar, but it's not downright unintelligible, either.
4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor").
I don't think you're interpreting those lines correctly. *DaH peHarghchoH DaH molor yISuvchoH ** tIja'* /Tell them, "Start a major battle now! Start Fighting Molor now!"/ This is an instance of quotation. The quotation is not any object of any kind; it is just another sentence pushed against the sentence that refers to speaking. The prefix trick may or may not be in use here (its use in *ja'* quotations has never been fully solved, in my opinion), but this stanza follows the pattern of *ja'* completely. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 10/1/2024 9:42 AM, SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
On 9/30/2024 5:15 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?
Right.
Well, it's technically correct, but what I forgot to mention is that it'll probably be interpreted as a mistaken attempt to say *tlhIngan Hol lujatlh chaH, *rather than an attempt to say /They say, Klingon language./ Unless the quotation version is already expected by the listener. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you, charghwI' and SuStel, as always for your replies and the interesting discussion. That was *a lot* of information! I understand SuStel's distinction between sintactic and semantic roles, and I find it a really exciting topic, but since in the thread I'm referring to "direct object" and "indirect object" are used, I will also use these terms here. SuStel:
1. *tlhIngan Hol jatlh chaH* cannot be an instance of the "prefix trick" (meaning "They speak Klingon to them") because there is another possible interpretation, i.e. a direct quotation with no object, so no "prefix trick" is being used and the sentence can only mean "They say: 'Klingon language'". Right?
Right.
Well, it's technically correct, but what I forgot to mention is that it'll probably be interpreted as a mistaken attempt to say *tlhIngan Hol lujatlh chaH, *rather than an attempt to say /They say, Klingon language./ Unless the quotation version is already expected by the listener.
Yes, I understand.
2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something?
Understand that no one in that thread was speaking in terms of absolute rules. I was talking about ambiguity and uncertain interpretations. De'vID was a little more certain that Holmey law' lujatlh would just be considered an error.
Ok! I suppose *Holmey law' lujatlh* is more likely to be understood as an error because it's a third-person object with a prefix referring to a third-person object, whereas in *paq qanob* we have a third-person object with a prefix referring to a second-person object.
3. We know now that the indirect object can also be explicit when using the "prefix trick" (*loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*). Is it possible to have both an explicit direct *and* indirect object with the "prefix trick"?
No.
How would it look like? Probably not so: *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut ja' qeylIS*, since *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je lut* could be interpreted as a noun-noun construction, ruling out the *prefix trick*. But what about *SoH paq qanob*? (*SoH paq* cannot be a noun-noun construction, right?).
The prefix trick is only used when the indirect object is not said explicitly. It's either SoHvaD paq vInob or paq qanob.
But if I'm not mistaken, in the thread I'm referring to *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* or *SuStel vIjang* are interpreted as instances of the "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes. So the prefix trick is not only used when the indirect object is not explicit, or am I missing something? Anyway, re-reading the thread I found an explanation of De'vID in which he says that Okrand confirmed him that if Kahless were telling *a story* to his father and brother, these would be marked with *-vaD*, so no possibility of "prefix trick" with both explicit objects.
I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that SoH paq cannot be a noun-noun construction. When dealing with directions and areas, we get constructions like jIH 'em area behind me. I believe we say things like jIH 'em instead of 'emwIj because I do not actually possess 'em, so possessive suffixes are inappropriate. So while phrases like SoH paq you book aren't going to be normal, they would still be understood in the same way: it's not paqlIj your book; a SoH paq is an extraordinary way to refer to a book about you. It's not good grammar, but it's not downright unintelligible, either.
Yes, I was also thinking on this possibility, but I was not sure about it.
4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor").
I don't think you're interpreting those lines correctly. DaH peHarghchoH DaH molor yISuvchoH tIja' Tell them, "Start a major battle now! Start Fighting Molor now!" This is an instance of quotation. The quotation is not any object of any kind; it is just another sentence pushed against the sentence that refers to speaking. The prefix trick may or may not be in use here (its use in ja' quotations has never been fully solved, in my opinion), but this stanza follows the pattern of ja' completely.
I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. I know that quotations are not the object of the sentence with the verb of speech. But in the thread I've mentioned *lujang* ("They answer him") is considered an example of "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes. What is the difference with *tIja'* ("Tell them")? In both cases there is no direct object. We also have the example *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*, which is followed by a direct quotation, and in that thread seems to be considered an instance of the "prefix trick". Or are you using the concept "prefix trick" just for situations in which we have an explicit direct object and a prefix pointing to an elided indirect object, and you consider sentences like *lujang*, *SuStel vIjang* or *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* just examples of verbs that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object (but you don't consider them instances of the "prefix trick")? Thank you!
On 10/2/2024 7:02 AM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I understand SuStel's distinction between sintactic and semantic roles, and I find it a really exciting topic, but since in the thread I'm referring to "direct object" and "indirect object" are used, I will also use these terms here.
And that's fine, so long as we understand that direct object and indirect object are semantic, not syntactic, roles in Klingon.
2. However, I don't understand why *Holmey law' lujatlh* couldn't be an instance of the "prefix trick" (I'm referring to De'vID's answer here:http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063074.html). There is no other interpretation of the verb prefix which makes sense. It is an usual error to forget *lu-* in informal speech, but not to use it when it isn't required, so its "unexpected" presence would point out to the *prefix trick* in the same way the presence of *qa-* point to it in *paq qanob*. Or am I missing something? Understand that no one in that thread was speaking in terms of absolute rules. I was talking about ambiguity and uncertain interpretations. De'vID was a little more certain that Holmey law' lujatlh would just be considered an error. Ok! I suppose *Holmey law' lujatlh* is more likely to be understood as an error because it's a third-person object with a prefix referring to a third-person object, whereas in *paq qanob* we have a third-person object with a prefix referring to a second-person object.
I think it's more likely to be considered an error because there's a *Hol* as the object of *jatlh,* which is a very common construction. Without some kind of super-obvious prompt that you're employing the prefix trick, most people will probably just think it's a prefix error. In *paq qanob,* it's much more obvious, even without context, that the prefix trick is being used because it's used a lot with *nob.*
The prefix trick is only used when the indirect object is not said explicitly. It's either SoHvaD paq vInob or paq qanob. But if I'm not mistaken, in the thread I'm referring to *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* or *SuStel vIjang* are interpreted as instances of the "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes.
Neither of those are uses of the prefix trick. In both sentences, the verb's prefix agrees with both the object and the subject. <third-person plural> ja' <third-person singular> <third-person singular> vIjang [first-person singular]
So the prefix trick is not only used when the indirect object is not explicit, or am I missing something?
The prefix trick is used when you want the prefix to agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object.
Anyway, re-reading the thread I found an explanation of De'vID in which he says that Okrand confirmed him that if Kahless were telling *a story* to his father and brother, these would be marked with *-vaD*, so no possibility of "prefix trick" with both explicit objects.
Yes, if he wanted to mention a *lut,* the direct object, it would be the object of the verb, and the indirect objects, the father and brother, would become the beneficiaries. *vavDajvaD loDnI'DajvaD je lut ja' qeylIS.*
4. *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'* (*paq'raD* 6, 4-6): Actually, *tI-* could here refer to *toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je*, making it impossible to interpret it as an instance of the "prefix trick", but in 7-9 (*DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'*) it is clear that *tI-* refers to *tlhIngan tuqmey* ("prefix trick" in a direct quotation), so the context suggests that the first *tI-* is also an instance of the "prefix trick", doesn't it? And if so, is it right to use *ja'* only with an indirect object when it isn't in a direct quotation? ("Tell them so that the Klingon tribes hear your story of courage and your story of honor"). I don't think you're interpreting those lines correctly. DaH peHarghchoH DaH molor yISuvchoH tIja' Tell them, "Start a major battle now! Start Fighting Molor now!" This is an instance of quotation. The quotation is not any object of any kind; it is just another sentence pushed against the sentence that refers to speaking. The prefix trick may or may not be in use here (its use in ja' quotations has never been fully solved, in my opinion), but this stanza follows the pattern of ja' completely. I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. I know that quotations are not the object of the sentence with the verb of speech. But in the thread I've mentioned *lujang* ("They answer him") is considered an example of "prefix trick" with third-person prefixes. What is the difference with *tIja'* ("Tell them")? In both cases there is no direct object. We also have the example *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS*, which is followed by a direct quotation, and in that thread seems to be considered an instance of the "prefix trick".
It is not an instance of the prefix trick. It is an instance of an indirect object (semantic role) appearing as the object (syntactic role) of the verb. Normally, the verb prefix agrees with the object (whether direct or indirect). When there is a direct object as the verb's object, or no possible direct object, the prefix trick lets you agree with an unstated indirect object instead of the explicit object. You can see why I want to make sure the terms "object," "direct object," and "indirect object" are clearly defined.
Or are you using the concept "prefix trick" just for situations in which we have an explicit direct object and a prefix pointing to an elided indirect object,
...or no direct object, as in *qajatlh*...
and you consider sentences like *lujang*, *SuStel vIjang* or *loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS* just examples of verbs that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object (but you don't consider them instances of the "prefix trick")?
Yes, that's it exactly. Neither of those two sentences employ the prefix trick. They are examples of verbs taking objects with the semantic role of indirect object. I'm certain that's the case with *ja';* I'm a little less sure with *jang,* since I'm not sure whether the direct object of the verb is the person or thing answered or something else.Examples in /paq'batlh/ of *lujang* aren't totally revealing, just as the examples in TKD of *qaja'pu'* weren't revealing of what the natural direct object of *ja'* is (we didn't find this out until /paq'batlh/). Ultimately, I think we give the prefix trick too much importance, analyzing it in far more a fine-grained way than Klingon linguists ever would. The verb prefix agrees with an object of some kind. It might not always be the object explicitly mentioned. It should always be clear what the agreement means. The distinction between direct and indirect object isn't carefully observed, though it does exist. Whether the object is "acted upon" or "receives the action" only matters when you've got more than one object, in which case only one can be explicit, the "acted upon" object. The "receives the action" object might become a beneficiary or might just be agreed with implicitly with the prefix trick. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you again for your clarifications, SuStel. A misleading interpretation of what the "prefix trick" is was preventing me of seeing things from the correct perspective. Just some last few questions:
When there is a direct object as the verb's object, or no possible direct object, the prefix trick lets you agree with an unstated indirect object instead of the explicit object.
When you say "no possible direct object", do you mean direct quotations...
Or are you using the concept "prefix trick" just for situations in which we have an explicit direct object and a prefix pointing to an elided indirect object,
...or no direct object, as in qajatlh...
... or do you mean, like in *qajatlh*, that *you* cannot be the direct object, because a person cannot *be spoken*, and thus it must be the indirect object? The reason why *qajatlh* is an instance of the "prefix trick" and not an instance of a verb taking an object with the semantic role of the indirect object, is just that we were told that the object of *jatlh* is a language, an act of speech or the thing that is being said, but not an audience, whereas we know that *ja'* can also take an audience as object, right? However, in the thread I was referring to you can also find the sentence *tlhIngan vIjatlh* ("I speak to the Klingon"). Would that be an instance of the "prefix trick"? Are there other verbs apart from *ja'* (and maybe *jang*) that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object?
On 10/2/2024 7:21 PM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
When you say "no possible direct object", do you mean direct quotations...
No, quotations are not objects of any kind. In all of this discussion, if a verb of speech is being used, it is entirely irrelevant whether there is a quotation or not.
...or no direct object, as in qajatlh...
Yes, that's what I mean. In fact, it's "no explicit object: either not possible or obviously not meant." It's possible for *jatlh* to have a direct object, but when you say *qajatlh,* you obviously don't mean /I speak you as a language./
... or do you mean, like in *qajatlh*, that *you* cannot be the direct object, because a person cannot *be spoken*, and thus it must be the indirect object?
That's part of it, yes.
The reason why *qajatlh* is an instance of the "prefix trick" and not an instance of a verb taking an object with the semantic role of the indirect object, is just that we were told that the object of *jatlh* is a language, an act of speech or the thing that is being said, but not an audience,
Yes.
whereas we know that *ja'* can also take an audience as object, right?
Yes.
However, in the thread I was referring to you can also find the sentence *tlhIngan vIjatlh* ("I speak to the Klingon").
I don't see that in the thread you linked to. I see *tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh,* not *tlhIngan vIjatlh.*
Would that be an instance of the "prefix trick"?
No, that would probably be considered an error. Someone probably forgot to add *Hol* to indicate that they were speaking "Klingon language."
Are there other verbs apart from *ja'* (and maybe *jang*) that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object?
Probably lots of them. *ghojmoH* is an example. In /paq'batlh/ we see both *[puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH* and *QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH.* In the former, the student is the object; in the latter /life and death is/ the objectin the role of direct object, and /he/ is the beneficiary in the role of indirect object. (And if that elided object in the first one concerns you, try *ghojwI'pu' chu' ghojmoH jatlhwI'pu' po'qu'* from qepHom'a' 2013.) "But that's got *-moH*!" I hear you cry. So what? The only thing *-moH* does is give the subject (syntactic role) the semantic role of causer instead of agent or theme or whatever. All the stuff people have said over the years about objects becoming subjects and so on is just more tortured grammar rules. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Everything is clear now, thank you!
However, in the thread I was referring to you can also find the sentence *tlhIngan vIjatlh* ("I speak to the Klingon").
I don't see that in the thread you linked to. I see tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh, not tlhIngan vIjatlh.
Would that be an instance of the "prefix trick"?
No, that would probably be considered an error. Someone probably forgot to add Hol to indicate that they were speaking "Klingon language."
The sentence is in another message of the same thread, here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-June/063068.html
Are there other verbs apart from *ja'* (and maybe *jang*) that can take an object with the semantic role of the indirect object? Probably lots of them. ghojmoH is an example. In paq'batlh we see both [puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH and QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH. In the former, the student is the object; in the latter life and death is the object in the role of direct object, and he is the beneficiary in the role of indirect object.
*tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH* ("You teach Klingon") - No "prefix trick" *'eSpanya'ngan DaghojmoH* ("You teach the Spaniard") - No "prefix trick" *DaghojmoH* (depending on context "You teach it/them" or "You teach her/him/them") - No "prefix trick" *choghojmoH* ("You teach me") - No "prefix trick" *jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH* ("You teach me Klingon") - No "prefix trick" *tlhIngan Hol choghojmoH* ("You teach me Klingon") - "Prefix trick" Right?
I forgot to say in my last e-mail that I've commented in line. For your information, you find the link to the message with *tlhIngan vIjatlh* in that e-mail below.
On 10/3/2024 12:23 PM, Luis via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
I forgot to say in my last e-mail that I've commented in line. For your information, you find the link to the message with *tlhIngan vIjatlh* in that e-mail below.
Yeah, but what De'vID said was: (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". That's not saying that *tlhIngan vIjatlh* means anything in particular; it's just warning not to forget the *Hol,* particularly now that verb prefixes might be a little more slippery with the expanded prefix trick, not that this necessarily means something. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
l.cp＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin