[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC : Sentences as objects

[Will Martin]

While I agree with the canon evidence that sometimes the direct object of {ja’} can be the unit of speech (a word, a sentence, a speech, a spoken part in an opera or whatever), the existence of {ja’chuq} pretty much nails the simple fact that SOMETIMES (if not most of the time) the direct object of {ja’} is definitely the person being addressed. There is no prefix trick here. Two or more speaking individuals are “telling each other”. I challenge you to find any other verb where {-chuq} was used to indicate an indirect object with some other direct object being used. Maybe you can answer that challenge, but until then, this case is pretty much closed.

The meaning of {-chuq} very simply is that members of a group are both subject and object of the action of the verb. That’s not really debatable.

Meanwhile, there is no example of {*jatlhchuq}, and so far as I’ve seen, no example in canon of {jatlh} used with a person as the direct object.

The other difference is that {jatlh} is obviously used with a language as the direct object, and so far that’s never been the case with {ja’}.

What canon suggests is that people are direct objects only of {ja’}, and languages are the direct objects of only {jatlh}, and either verb can have some kind of utterance as the direct object. Early examples seem to prefer {jatlh} for utterances and this one more recent body of work seems to strongly prefer {ja’} for this.

Perhaps there’s some other difference in meaning which would lead one to prefer one over the other for a particular statement about an utterance, but I don’t think that anyone here has managed a clear analysis that would help the rest of us know which to prefer in any given instance.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:29 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 11/19/2015 5:25 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 
>> TKD is full of examples of {ja'} used with the person addressed as the
>> object. No need to list those.
> 
> But one must point out that it's impossible to say whether the person addressed is the direct object or the indirect object.
> 
> qaja'pu'
> 
> Is it:
> 
> [SoH] qaja'pu'
> 
> or
> 
> [SoHvaD] qaja'pu'
> 
> (don't interpret those as sentences; they're meant to be illustrations of the target of the prefix)
> 
> ?
> 
> Both are allowed when one considers the prefix trick.
> 
> Nearly every example in canon has this ambiguity.
> 
>> The {paq'batlh}
> 
> I keep forgetting to bring it with me to work for reference. We gotta get this thing published for Kindle so I can search it!
> 
>> has a number of instances of {ja'} where the content of what's told
>> is the object of {ja'}:
>> 
>> {Qo'noSDaq boqwI'mey / nejmeH je leng qeylIS / 'ej chaHvaD lut ja'}
>> "Kahless also went out to search / For allies across Kronos, / And
>> told them his tale."
>> 
>> {wIj jup / SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe' / jIHvaD ratlh pagh}
>> "Dear old friend, / I cannot speak of my tragedies, / There is nothing
>> left for me."
> 
> This clinches it for me: the direct object of {ja'} is the thing told, not the person told to.
> 
>> The {paq'batlh} also has some instances where the person addressed is
>> the object of {ja'}. So it has both.
> 
> Anything explicit? Or just more prefix-trick ambiguity?
> 
>> There's also this phrase from the greeting video sent out by Marc
>> Okrand about the opera {'u'}:
>> {qatlh tlhIngan lut luja' tera'ngan DawI'pu'lI'?}
>> Why are your earthling actors telling a Klingon story?
> 
> Direct object is thing told, not person told to.
> 
>> It seems to me that the way to make sense of all of this is that,
>> while in proper grammar the object of {ja'} is the thing reported and
>> the recipient is indicated with {-vaD}, in "typical" usage it just
>> happens to be the case that the prefix trick is applied very often
>> with this verb, making it look as if the person addressed is the
>> "typical" object.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> -- 
> 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/20151120/4d84ce1c/attachment-0001.html>