[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

Fri Nov 20 20:21:14 PST 2015

I appreciate the analysis on what is clearly inconsistency in terms of objects.

I have a nasty suspicion that when dealing with the specific verb and suffix {ghojmoH} that the translator may have fallen to the English “teach” without considering that it really means “cause to learn.”

A person learns. Life and death do not learn. If I teach Klingon language, that does not imply that I cause the Klingon language to learn. If I teach Klingon language to Worf (God knows he needs teaching), then Worf may be the beneficiary, so {-vaD} does make sense, if you think of the English phrasing, word for word, but thinking of the Klingon typical grammar, it would be far better to say that I cause Worf to learn in order that he can speak Klingon.

So, without having to bend around different kinds of objects, we should be able to agree that a valid and uncontroversial way to say this would be:

tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaHmeH, wo’rIv vIghojmoH.

Or move the comma:

tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaHmeH wo’rIv, vIghojmoH.

Unfortunately, the author of paq’batlh didn’t ask me how to say this in Klingon…

[Yes, I am joking.]

So, we’re left with a mess that requires uncommon analysis. Thank you for providing that uncommon analysis. It explains what he did at least as well as anything else.

Forgive me if I continue to express things in ways that better fit more conventional grammatical constructions. I’m old. Maybe I just keep speaking the tongue of the previous emperor. It’s not intended to be an insult. I’m just not as verbally nimble as I once was.

Also, I tend to agree about the arbitrary nature of a verb’s relationship with objects. It falls back to the common example I use about how the Moon moves around Earth, when it orbits Earth. It’s the same motion, but one verb uses a prepositional connection between the subject and the preposition’s object, while the other directly connects the subject to the direct object.

There’s nothing innate in that. It’s all arbitrary. I think that a verb’s relationship with its objects are among the most arbitrary of elements in language. A direct object is really almost like a clipped form of an indirect object or a prepositional object, chosen for a specific verb. Another verb may have a different link to the same object.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 5:04 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol