[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC : Sentences as objects

[Will Martin]

I usually don’t question the accuracy of what you (SuStel) say these days because you obviously go to great effort with impressive skill to be accurate. Your accuracy rate at this time exceeds mine by a wide margin. I’m quite sloppy by comparison and you deserve respect for your greater discipline.

That said, I have a distinct memory of Okrand saying that the direct object of {jatlh} was words, sentences, language, a speech, etc. It’s the thing being said. He said that the direct object of {ja’} was the person or persons being addressed, hence {ja’chuq} being translated as “discuss” because it involves people telling each other something.

I have a hazy memory of him hedging his bet with a typical twinkle in his eye by saying that if there were some canon example of some other object being used with either of these words, then obviously, it’s not as strict as that, but that his intent in creating these two different words was to have the direct object of {jatlh} being the sounds coming out of someone’s mouth, and the direct object of {ja’} being the person or persons being told something.

I remember this so clearly because it was a revelation to me at the moment. I had not really thought there was much of a difference in the two words. I thought they were like {HIja’} and {HISlaH}, two different pronunciations for the same word spoken badly by two different actors. But he made a point about how he intended these two speech words to be different in nature. So, the memory stuck.

My memory is of this coming straight out of Okrand’s mouth, either at one of the qep’a’mey, or in my interview with him in HolQeD. These are the only times I’ve talked with him, except for a few phone exchanges involved in getting the details straight over the word {meqleH}, which he had spoken into a tape recorder for a fellow at a con who had built one and handed it to him and asked him what to call it.

So, as he hedged, if he did use {ja’} or {jatlh} differently than he explained, then obviously, it’s okay because canon redefines things all the time, but for myself, out of respect for that early glimmer of an idea about how the words should be different, that’s the way I’ll always use them.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 18, 2015, at 10:24 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 11/18/2015 9:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> 
>> If I wanted to say “Someone told me, 'Go home,’” I’d translate it as
>> {muja’ vay’. jatlh. <<juH yIghoS.>>} Literally it means “Someone told
>> me. He/she said. Go home.” That’s the clearest way that I can express
>> that some unidentified person said, “Go home,” to me. You could scramble
>> this around several ways. You could say, {vIja’lu’. jatlh. <<juH
>> yIghoS.>> or {vIja’lu’. <<juH yIghoS.>> jatlh.}
> 
> In the HolQeD article on this topic, Okrand said that {ja'} is also a verb of saying, so {muja'pu' vay', juH yIghoS} "someone told me, 'go home'" is an acceptable sentence. (Also {juH yIghoS, muja'pu' vay'}.) And don't forget {qaja'pu' jonta' neH} "I told you, engine only."
> 
> I'd also add the {-pu'}, as I did above, because the telling is a completed action.
> 
>> I tend to differentiate between {ja’} (to tell, as in to speak TO
>> SOMEONE) and {jatlh} (to say, as in to say SOMETHING). The object of
>> {ja’} tends to be the person(s) spoken to, while the object of {jatlh}
>> tends to be the thing spoken (the words, the language, the speech,
>> whatever).
> 
> I don't think we've ever seen an unambiguous instance of {ja'} taking a DIRECT object. We know it can take some kind of object, e.g., {qaja'pu'} "I told you," but since the prefix trick lets first- and second-person object prefixes point to elided indirect object pronouns instead of the direct object, it's possible that in {qaja'pu'} the {qa-} is indicating that "you" are the indirect object. We also know that a direct object is not required for this construction, as in the example {qajatlh} "I speak to you."
> 
> Considering the large number of instances of {ja'} in the canon, it's odd that finding one with an unambiguous direct object is so difficult.
> 
> I also think it's quite possible that the direct object of {ja'} is the thing being told: a status {Dotlh}, for instance. {Dotlh yIja'} "report status!"
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151118/b1338c71/attachment.html>