[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> Can one say {quv maja'chuq}?
> What about {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}?

jang lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> I’m pretty sure we’ve never had an example of an explicit direct object
> in a sentence with a prefix that indicates no direct object.

I know of none either, and I'd make substantial bets that we will never, ever see that. Agreement prefixes have the function of signalling the relationships of the nouns in the sentence to the verb and to each other, and I think this interchange from the interview with Marc in HQ 7.4 is apposite here:

MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.

The implication of these latter two remarks is that if there's no object reference in the pronominal prefix, then whatever noun precedes it cannot be the direct object. It's a disconnection in the rule of {rom}.

In terms of the two sentences given by De'vID: no, I would say that both of these are categorically impossible. Both of them would require the pronominal prefix {wI-}, at least. We know from paq'batlh that {ja'chuq} has become lexified with the meaning "discuss" and can take an object: {quv HIja'chuqQo'} "do not discuss honour with me" (paq'batlh: paq'raD 19.12), so {quv wIja'chuq} is grammatical.

And I think I'd tentatively accept {Qu'maj wIqawchuqmoH} for "we cause each other to remember our mission", though it does set off my spider senses. Because it seems an explicit causee of a {-moH}-marked bivalent verb should be a {-vaD}-marked header if a direct object is present (cf. S20), I have trouble with the idea that {-chuq} can, as it were, reach down into the indirect object slot in the causative when it can't normally do so when the causative isn't present. But I certainly don't pretend to have thought that one all the way through and I'm not even sure that the way I'm thinking about it is correct. I'll need to muse on that for a while.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/d83d6941/attachment.html>