prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq}
Before I start, let me say that when it comes to the suffixes {-'egh} and {-chuq}, I still don't understand how it is possible, that when they are used there is an object. According to our sacred scripture: {-egh} <oneself> This suffix is used to indicate that the action described by the verb affects the performer of the action, the subject. It is translated by English <self.> When this suffix is used, the prefix set indicating "no object" must also be used. And.. {-chuq} <one another> This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is translated <each other> or <one another.> The prefix set indicating "no object" is also used when this suffix is used. According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ? In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ? Whatever.. Now let's leave aside the {-'egh} and {-chuq}, and concern ourselves with the prefix trick.. The prefix trick is to be used by first and second person objects (singular or plural), because otherwise ambiguity arises. Example: taj qanobpu' I gave you the knife taj nunobpu' he/they gave us the knife But if we used a third person object.. taj lunobpu' they gave the knife they gave him the knife taj vInobpu' I gave the knife I gave him the knife I gave them the knife Now let's forget the above and come to the question of this post. Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? I don't see a way any ambiguity could appear. taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife taj nob'eghpu' he gave himself a knife they gave themselves a knife taj Sunobchuqpu' you gave each other a knife taj nobchuqpu' they gave each other a knife So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? ~ Qa'yIn
I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will point out a couple of things. On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ? In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ?
The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the reflexive suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there can be an object. One might reasonably conclude that requiring a no-object prefix also implies no object, but it doesn't actually /say/ that.
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I have recently speculated that the requirement to use no-object prefixes may not be about restricting which prefixes may be used with reflexive suffixes but about telling the reader which prefixes typically make sense with them. "Okay, I want to say /We see ourselves./ /See/ is *legh,* /reflexive/ is *-'egh, *and /we/ is *maH.* What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's no /we–us/ prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."
So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in/paq'batlh:/ *quv HIja'chuq*/Don't speak to me of honor!/ Some people question the strength of this as an example, though, because *ja'chuq* appears in the dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root. I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or sensible. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Great analysis. Great answer. I thought I had an idea about the exception, but on second thought, it doesn’t work... {quv HIja’chuq} There are exceptions, and then there are EXCEPTIONS, and this one is an EXCEPTION. Okay, on THIRD thought, it makes sense because it’s a command. There is no imperative prefix for the first person subject, no object, so it’s impossible to follow the rule about {-chuq} here. The only way to say “we/us” as an imperative (which always has the second person subject), if you mean singular you and singular me, is to use {HI-}. So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote: “Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me. So, yes, it breaks the rule, but there’s no way to say this without breaking the rule. Maybe {ja’chuq} is a fossilized root verb, but it doesn’t have to be in order to explain why this is so exceptional. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 6, 2020, at 9:26 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will point out a couple of things.
On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ? In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ? The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the reflexive suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there can be an object. One might reasonably conclude that requiring a no-object prefix also implies no object, but it doesn't actually say that.
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I have recently speculated that the requirement to use no-object prefixes may not be about restricting which prefixes may be used with reflexive suffixes but about telling the reader which prefixes typically make sense with them.
"Okay, I want to say We see ourselves. See is legh, reflexive is -'egh, and we is maH. What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's no we–us prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."
So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in paq'batlh: quv HIja'chuq Don't speak to me of honor! Some people question the strength of this as an example, though, because ja'chuq appears in the dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root.
I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or sensible.
-- 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 7/6/2020 10:04 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Okay, on THIRD thought, it makes sense because it’s a command. There is no imperative prefix for the first person subject, no object, so it’s impossible to follow the rule about {-chuq} here. The only way to say “we/us” as an imperative (which always has the second person subject), if you mean singular you and singular me, is to use {HI-}.
I don't follow your language here. Imperatives don't have overt subjects. TKD doesn't make us guess how to prefix reflexive imperatives: it gives us explicit instructions in sections 4.2.1 and 4.1.2 that reflexive imperatives use *yI-* for singular commandees and *pe-* for plural commandees. What imperatives don't have is a prefix to refer the commandee to do something to a second-person object. This is because that is handled by the reflexive suffixes.
So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote:
“Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me.
That's also reasonable. If we suppose that the prefix trick can override the no-object reflexive rule, a proposition I have little problem with, then this means *HIja'chuqQo'*//equals*jIHvaD yIja'chuqQo'* or *jIHvaD peja'chuqQo'.* The only exception I have to this reading is that the style of /paq'batlh/ does not include single-noun sentences like *quv,* and quotation is a function of sentences-as-object. The word cannot be interpreted as a verb in the context in which it appears. I don't think this is what Okrand had in mind when he translated the sentence, but it works as well. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in* paq'batlh:* *quv HIja'chuq** Don't speak to me of honor!*
Should be {quv HIja'chuq*Qo'*}.
Some people question the strength of this as an example, though, because *ja'chuq* appears in the dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root.
There's also {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} "Kahless united the tribes of Kronos", which doesn't violate the rule at first glance, but suggests an exception, since {Qo'noS tuqmey} is the object of {muvchuqmoH}. Even though a null prefix is used here, it's clearly indicating "he-them" rather than "no object" (the prefix just happens to be the same by coincidence). Presumably, Kahless himself can say *{Qo'noS tuqmey vImuvchuqmoH}. The implied exception to the "no object" prefix rule is that {-moH} changes the valency of the verb, thus allowing {-moH} to be used with an object. For example, {quv ghoja'chuqmoHQo'} would mean "don't make us discuss honour". -- De'vID
jatlh Qa'yIn:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? I don't see a way any ambiguity could appear.
If there were a legitimate indirect object that you wanted to represent with a "disallowed" prefix on {-'egh} or {-chuq}, I would not have any problem reading that as the prefix trick.
taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife
taj nob'eghpu' he gave himself a knife they gave themselves a knife
taj Sunobchuqpu' you gave each other a knife
taj nobchuqpu' they gave each other a knife
The problem with these examples is that they are trying to represent the indirect object with {-'egh} or {-chuq} and it is not clear that we can do that. Aside from very unusual examples like {ja'chuq} (which others have already discussed), I don't feel like we have any clear examples of this in canon. I don't outright object to it existing in the grammar, but without clearer indication, I do not support this use at this time. janSIy
jIH:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? SuStel: Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes
I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken. Suppose we write: taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife or taj manobchuqpu' we gave each other a knife How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-} and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very basic which I don't understand, and this worries me. janSIy:
I do not support this use at this time.
I agree with your suggestion, and I wouldn't use the prefix trick with the reflexive suffixes either. In fact, I don't remember having ever used the prefix trick at all, since I don't like it. It is creepingly similar to the greek/english way of saying things, and I always prefered to avoid it. But I'm just trying to understand how things work, and as it seems there's something very basic which I'm missing here. ~ Qa'yIn
On 7/7/2020 8:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? SuStel: Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken.
Suppose we write:
taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife
or
taj manobchuqpu' we gave each other a knife
How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-} and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very basic which I don't understand, and this worries me.
Oh, no, those simply don't follow the prefix trick rule, which is this: "When the indirect object ... is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person object may be used." Whether or not you think the subject of a reflexive verb can be its indirect object, you haven't used prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person object. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
So, the prefix trick only works for an indirect object, being a first or second person being capable of using language (since things not capable of speech can’t be speaking in the first person and it has not been culturally confirmed that Klingons speak to things incapable of using language). The prefix syntactically suggests that this indirect object were the direct object, though grammatically (semantically?), it is treated as the indirect object, so that a “di-transitive” verb (like {nob}) can free up the syntactic slot for direct object, since Klingon lacks syntax for two direct objects. I’m sure that this will spur on a clarification about the Klingon idea of “object” without reference to it being “direct” or “indirect”, but the point is, a Klingon sentence has one position for a direct object, and a Type 5 suffix for indirect object. You can’t have two direct object nouns in a Klingon sentence. There is no place to put the second one. So, {taj qanob.} = {SoHvaD taj vInob.} {-egh} and {-chuq} is a different grammatical area where literal syntax suggests something other than the semantics. The syntax says there’s no direct object, but {-chuq} or {-‘egh} inform us that the subject is also the object. It doesn’t say that the subject is also the indirect object. Perhaps, the “object” can represent either a null-pronoun or invisible noun direct object, or even an invisible {-vaD}-appended pronoun? The main point of interest here is that the verb prefix normally tells us the person and number of the subject and object, except when the prefix trick informs us of the first or second person indirect object, instead, or when {-chuq} or {-‘egh} duplicates the subject into the object (probably direct object, but perhaps also indirect object?) position without reflecting that in the prefix. In other words, if you take the two most confusing things one can do with a prefix and try to mix them in ways for which we have no canon to take as examples, you are not walking on thin ice. You are walking on water. And Klingons don’t like getting wet. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 7, 2020, at 9:02 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/7/2020 8:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? SuStel: Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken.
Suppose we write:
taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife
or
taj manobchuqpu' we gave each other a knife
How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-} and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very basic which I don't understand, and this worries me. Oh, no, those simply don't follow the prefix trick rule, which is this: "When the indirect object ... is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person object may be used."
Whether or not you think the subject of a reflexive verb can be its indirect object, you haven't used prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person object.
-- 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 7/7/2020 11:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
So, the prefix trick only works for an indirect object, being a first or second person
Yes.
being capable of using language (since things not capable of speech can’t be speaking in the first person and it has not been culturally confirmed that Klingons speak to things incapable of using language).
Don't insert this editorial into the explanation. It hasn't been culturally confirmed that Klingons DON'T speak to things incapable of using language or that things incapable of using language can't be fed words as if they were.
The prefix syntactically suggests that this indirect object were the direct object, though grammatically (semantically?), it is treated as the indirect object, so that a “di-transitive” verb (like {nob}) can free up the syntactic slot for direct object, since Klingon lacks syntax for two direct objects.
The prefix does not syntactically suggest that the indirect object is the direct object. The prefix agrees with an "object." NOWHERE does TKD say anything about that object having to be direct. In Klingon, "object" is a syntactic role. It is the unmarked argument to the verb that precedes the verb. It generally represents the entity on which the verb is acting, without regard to what that actually means. "Direct object" is a semantic role meaning the entity to which the action of the verb is done. In simple sentences, the semantic direct object is usually the syntactic object. "Indirect object" is a semantic role meaning the entity that receives the result of the action of the verb. In simple sentences, the semantic indirect object is usually either a syntactic object or a syntactic "beneficiary" (noun marked with *-vaD* that goes before any object), depending on the circumstances of the sentence. A verb like *nob* is not ditransitive. Klingon does not have ditransitivity. Ditransitivity is when you have multiple syntactic objects. A Klingon verb always has, at most, a single syntactic object. What *nob* CAN have is simultaneous direct and indirect objects. *SoHvaD taj vInob: SoHvaD* is the syntactic beneficiary and the semantic indirect object and *taj* is the syntactic object and semantic direct object. *taj qanob:* *SoH* has no syntactic role because it is not said in the sentence and *taj* is the syntactic object and semantic direct object. In neither of these cases is there two syntactic objects.
I’m sure that this will spur on a clarification about the Klingon idea of “object” without reference to it being “direct” or “indirect”, but the point is, a Klingon sentence has one position for a direct object, and a Type 5 suffix for indirect object.
Wrong. A Klingon sentence has one position for an object and a type 5 suffix for beneficiary. Where its semantic roles end up depend on the nature of the sentence.
You can’t have two direct object nouns in a Klingon sentence. There is no place to put the second one.
This is true. You can't have two nouns with the semantic role of direct object because you can only have one noun with the syntactic role of object.
{-egh} and {-chuq} is a different grammatical area where literal syntax suggests something other than the semantics.
Yes! Exactly!
The syntax says there’s no direct object,
No, the syntax says there's no object. In a sentence like *maleghchuq maH*/We see each other,/ the direct object is also the subject.
but {-chuq} or {-‘egh} inform us that the subject is also the object.
Strictly speaking, TKD says nothing about the subject being the object. It says "This suffix is used to indicate that the action described by the verb affects the performer of the action, the subject." It also says "the prefix set indicating 'no object' must also be used." There is nothing there about the actual presence of an object. "Affects the performer" semantically describes a direct object.
It doesn’t say that the subject is also the indirect object.
And yet two of the examples on that very page demonstrate the subject being the indirect object. *yIja''egh */Tell yourself//!/ *pe'ja''egh*/Tell yourselves!/ are examples in which the reflexivity indicates an indirect object. (Strictly speaking, there are no subjects in these sentences, since they're imperative.) Semantically, the person is an indirect object. // / /
/ / // Perhaps, the “object” can represent either a null-pronoun or invisible noun direct object, or even an invisible {-vaD}-appended pronoun?
What would be the point of inventing phantom words? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
janSIy . -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin