[Tlhingan-hol] Hints and Tips : OVS

[SuStel]

On 12/31/2015 3:08 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> I have been discussing the prefix trick with myself, and a new
> question/observation just came to mind..
>
> I noticed from the aforementioned examples that the prefix trick
> "eliminates" the direct mentioning of a pronoun.
>
> In the {jIHvaD taj Danob} and {taj chonob} example the {jIHvaD} is eliminated.
> In the {SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} and {tlhIngan Hol qaghojmoH}
> the {SoHvaD} is eliminated.
>
> By saying "eliminated" meaning of course, that its meaning is
> expressed using the prefix trick.
>
> However, take into account this sentence :
>
> I showed the dog where the cat is.
> I showed the cat for the dog.
> Ha'DIbaHvaD vIghro' vI'angpu'.
>
> Is there a way I could use here the prefix trick ? I suppose I could
> say vIghro' vI'angpu' (I showed it the cat), however it would not be
> specified to whom I showed the cat.
>
> So, my observation/question is that unless there is a pronoun to be
> "eliminated" the prefix trick can't be used. Is this a correct
> observation/conclusion ?

The prefix trick only works with first- and second-person indirect 
objects, as stated by Okrand when he first explained it. If it worked 
for third-person indirect objects you would not be able to distinguish 
{vIghro' vI'angpu'} "I showed the cat to it" and {vIghro' vI'angpu'} "I 
showed the cat (to anyone in general)."

Since the only first- and second-person words are pronouns, only 
pronouns can be elided with the prefix trick.

By the way, I'm the one who coined the phrase "prefix trick" as a 
disparagement of the rule, as I felt it was just a way to "English" some 
Klingon grammar, and to backfit some mistakes caused by an overreliance 
on English grammar. It probably was. But I understand better now that a 
Klingon object doesn't necessarily equate to an English direct object. 
Fortunately, the term isn't TOO disparaging to continue to use.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name