[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: Daw'

[SuStel]

On 5/7/2014 3:49 AM, De'vID wrote:
> Voragh:
>>>     lujang meQboghnom 'oH, yeqchuqchu'taHghach Daw' je joqwI'
>>>     They reply it is the {meQboghnom}, the banner of unity and revolution.
>>> PB
>
> SuStel:
>> Notice the multiple suffixes preceding {-ghach}. Notice also the use of
>> {jang} as a verb of saying, whose object is third-person singular.
>
> Actually, how do verbs of speech work with third-person plural
> subjects? Did Okrand ever cover this?
>
> He talks about first- and second-person prefixes with {jatlh} here:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt
>
> The rule is that if the speaker is first- or second-person, and it's a
> direct quotation, the prefix indicating no object is used (Presumably,
> this rule can be extended to other "verbs of speech".) But he doesn't
> say whether {lu-} or the null prefix is used if it's a direct
> quotation from a third-person plural subject, nor does he give
> examples of first- and second-person plural subjects. Perhaps it's
> impossible to give a direct quotation for a plural subject, since it's
> assumed impossible for multiple people to say exactly the same thing?

I think you're missing the point of his explanation. He's saying that 
the quotation is NOT the object of the verb of speech, so if someone 
"says," then use the null-prefix to indicate there is no object, as usual.

However, if your verb of speech has an object AND a quotation, use a 
prefix as normal to indicate the object. In paq'batlh {lujang} seems to 
be a verb of speech, so it means "they answer him/her/it," and the words 
spoken are smooshed against it in the usual way.

> And here, he mentions that there are very few "verbs of speech", "like
> {jatlh} and {ja'}":
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt
>
> Am I right to understand that the {lujang} example from PB implies
> that (1) {jang} is a verb of speech, and (2) the answer is an indirect
> quotation? (The English translation seems to support this.)

1. Yes.
2. No.

{jang} has gone back and forth in canon regarding its 
verb-of-speechiness. At this point it looks like all of the {ja-} speech 
verbs of "verbs of speech."

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/