[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

I'm looking through paq'batlh, with an eye on transitivity.

One example is, of course, {ja'}, which seems to be able to take both 
the party spoken to and the matter spoken of as its object:

    loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS
    Kahless tells his brother and father

    SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe'
    I cannot speak of my tragedies

Then there is {ghojmoH}, which seems to use both the party taught and 
the matter taught as its object:

    SuvwI' DameH puqloDwI' vIghojHa'moH
    I have failed to raise my son a man

    ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH
    teach him life and death

I think what's happening here is not that these verbs can take different 
direct objects at different times, but rather that Klingon syntax does 
not distinguish between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it 
does so semantically.

Klingon sentences can take exactly one explicit "object," whether the 
object is semantically direct or indirect. (I know, direct and indirect 
objects are syntactic, not semantic, terms, but I'm going to use them 
here as such.) The verb prefix must agree with EITHER the direct or 
indirect object, whether that is explicit or implicit. If an explicit 
and implicit object were both third person, the prefix would not be 
enough to distinguish which one you're talking about, so you can't do 
that. Implicit objects must be semantic indirect objects and must be 
first or second person.

So in {vavDaj ja' qeylIS}, {vavDaj} is syntactically the "object," and 
semantically the "indirect object." In {Seng vIja'}, {Seng} is 
syntactically the "object" and semantically the "direct object."

If I want to combine "I tell you" and "I tell a story," I get {lut 
qaja'} "I tell you a story," where {lut} is the syntactic "object" and 
semantic "direct object," while the prefix agrees with the implicit 
syntactic "object" and semantic "indirect object" {SoH}.

If I want to combine "I tell Kahless" and "I tell a story," there are 
two third-person objects, which isn't allowed, so one must be removed. 
Since the role of {-vaD} still covers this meaning, we can say 
{qeylISvaD} "for/to Kahless," which is still the semantic "indirect 
object" while not being a syntactic object at all. {qeylISvaD lut vIja'}.

Likewise with {ghojmoH}. "I teach you Mok'bara" is {moQbara' qaghojmoH}. 
There's learning involved, and I cause it. The matter taught is 
Mok'bara, so that's the semantic direct object. You're the student, so 
you're the semantic indirect object. Syntactically we can only have one 
explicit object, but since the prefix can point to the implicit semantic 
indirect object, we leave {moQbara'} as the syntactic object and refer 
to the implicit semantic indirect object with the prefix.

Then, "I teach Morath Mok'bara." The semantic direct and indirect 
objects are both third-person, so the prefix can't be used to 
distinguish them. Thus, we move one to the beneficiary, to end up with 
{moratlhvaD moQbara' vIghojmoH}.

Meanwhile, it's also perfectly reasonable to say both {moratlh 
vIghojmoH} "I teach Morath" and {moQbara' vIghojmoH} "I teach Mok'bara." 
With only one object, whether it's semantically direct or indirect, it 
goes in the object spot and the verb prefix agrees with it. (I suppose 
you could also say {moratlhvaD jIghojmoH}, but it's not necessary.)

Not all verbs allow this fully. Apparently you can't say *{qeylIS 
vIjatlh} "I speak to Kahless," but you CAN say {SoQ vIjatlh} "I speak a 
speech; I give a speech." You can also say {qajatlh} "I speak to you" 
and even {SoQ qajatlh} "I speak a speech to you; I give you a speech."

And for many verbs I imagine this makes no sense at all, semantically. 
With our favorite gimped verb, {Qong}, no semantic direct or indirect 
object seems to really work (or if one does, we have yet to see it). And 
verbs of quality seem to work quite differently than verbs of action 
(when a quality is caused, the recipient of the quality becomes the 
object of the quality).

Anyway, just some rambling thoughts. Ultimately, I don't think Klingon 
syntax is quite so rigid as we sometimes claim.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name