[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[De'vID]

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

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> 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.
>> [...]
>> Basically, you are making up your own grammar and figuring that since
>> it makes sense to you, it should make sense to everyone else, even if
>> it has nothing to do with the grammar we’ve been given in TKD and it’s
>> never been done in canon.

Actually, it *doesn't* completely make sense to me. That's why I'm
asking questions.

SuStel has presented a hypothesis about how some verbs work with
multiple objects, namely, that "Klingon syntax does not distinguish
between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it does so
semantically."

I just wanted to know how (he thinks) {-chuq} would work under such a
hypothesis. I'm not *asserting* that that's how it works. I'm asking,
*assuming* that's how it works, how would {-chuq} work with his idea.
My goal isn't to invent grammar willy-nilly; it's to find a way to
parse {quv HIja'chuqQo'} as a grammatical Klingon sentence.

If you think I'm "making up [my] own grammar", then how do *you* make
sense of {quv HIja'chuqQo'}?

QeS 'utlh:
> 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.

Okay. What about {quv'e' maja'chuq} and {Qu'maj'e' maqawchuqmoH}?

Now {quv} and {Qu'maj} have a function in their respective sentences.

QeS 'utlh:
> 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.

>From TKD 4.2.1: This suffix is used only with plural subjects. It is
translated "each other" or "one another". The prefix set indicating
"no object" is also used when this suffix is used.

It's not possible to use {wI-} with {-chuq}, at least if we take TKD
at its word.

QeS 'utlh:
> 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.

Do we actually *know* this, or is it just an educated guess as to
what's going on? That's what I thought when I first saw it, but then
it was pointed out (by ghunchu'wI' the last time we tried to dissect
{quv HIja'chuqQo'} on this mailing list) that TKD was very explicit
about {ja'chuq}. According to TKD 6.2.4: The verb is made up of {ja'}
"tell", {-chuq} "each other"; thus, "confer" is "tell each other".

So, the sentence {quv HIja'chuqQo'} contradicts what's written in TKD,
either in section 4.2.1 or in section 6.2.4.

If it's true that {ja'chuq} is just a verb which happens to look like
{ja'} + {-chuq} but isn't, then {quv HIja'chuqQo'} would indeed make
sense as the prefix trick applied to {jIHvaD quv yIja'chuqQo'}. This
assumes that TKD 6.2.4 is wrong or superseded. I'm not entirely sure
that such an assumption is necessary.

The other possibility is that there are exceptions to the rule in TKD
4.2.1 which aren't stated there. (A third possibility is that the
sentence is an error, of course, but let's assume it isn't.) TKD 4.2.1
gives the following examples of imperative verbs with {-'egh} and
{-chuq}:
{yIja''egh} "tell yourself"
{peja''egh} "tell yourselves"
{peqIpchuq} "hit each other"

The "prefix trick" was revealed (or retroactively invented, perhaps)
after the publication of TKD. How does it interact with {-'egh} and
{-chuq}, and with SuStel's idea that "Klingon syntax does not
distinguish between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it
does so semantically"?

We know from canon that we can say {wo'rIvvaD quH qawmoH Ha'quj} "The
sash reminds Worf of his heritage". Grammatically, {SoHvaD Qu'
yIqawmoH} "remind you(rself) of the mission" is also possible. Can the
prefix trick turn this into *{Qu' yIqaw'eghmoH}? This violates the
rule in TKD 4.2.1 that the prefix set indicating "no object" is used
with {-'egh}. But then again, the prefix trick can put a prefix
indicating an object on a verb where one would have otherwise expected
a "no object" prefix.

(Of course, we can always say {Qu' DaqawmeH yIqaw'eghmoH}, or express
the same idea as {Qu' yIqaw}. But the discussion here is about the
grammar, not how to express the specific example.)

If {SoHvaD quv vIja'} = {quv qaja'} and {jIHvaD quv Daja'} = {quv
choja'}, can these be combined using the prefix trick into *{quv
maja'chuq}? After all, we can combine {qaqIp} and {choqIp} into
{maqIpchuq}. It's true that there's no canon to support this, but it's
just a combined application of two ideas that we do have canon for:
the prefix trick and {-chuq}. As for the objection in the HolQeD 7:4
interview that {bIQtIq jIjaH} because {bIQtIq} has no role in the
sentence, I don't believe that applies to {quv} here. {quv} has the
same role in {quv maja'chuq} that it did in {quv vIja'} and {quv
Daja'}.

So far, I don't think {quv maja'chuq} explicitly violates any rules. I
may be applying two known rules in a way never done before and
unsupported by any canon example [except possibly {quv HIja'chuqQo'},
see immediately below], but I don't see an explicit violation. (I
mean, in the sense that a proposal like *{quv wIja'chuq} explicitly
violates the "no object" rule for {-chuq}.)

As for {quv HIja'chuqQo'}, the {HI-} is incompatible with {-chuq}
based on what we know. There's no way to reconcile this without
assuming that something in TKD is overridden by a later exception or
rule, which is possibly still unknown. But one possibility is that the
prefix trick works in strange ways with {-chuq} and imperatives.

I'm thinking of something like this:
{jIHvaD quv Daja'Qo'} = {quv choja'Qo'}
{jIHvaD quv yIja'Qo'} = {quv HIja'Qo'}
{SoHvaD quv vIja'Qo'} = {quv qaja'Qo'}
{quv choja'Qo'} + {quv qaja'Qo'} = {quv maja'chuqQo'}
{quv HIja'Qo'} + {quv qaja'Qo'} = {quv HIja'chuqQo'} ???

Of course, this might be completely wrong. But any explanation of {quv
HIja'chuqQo'} must necessarily contradict something in TKD.

QeS 'utlh:
> 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.

I'm just going along with SuStel's idea that "Klingon syntax does not
distinguish between direct and indirect objects at all, even when it
does so semantically".

{jIHvaD Qu'maj DaqawmoH} = {Qu'maj choqawmoH}
{SoHvaD Qu'maj vIqawmoH} = {Qu'maj qaqawmoH}
{choqawmoH} + {qaqawmoH} = {maqawchuqmoH}
Combining the above: {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}

To me, using {wI-} instead of {ma-} looks weird because I expect a "no
object" prefix with {-chuq}, whereas the fact that {Qu'maj} isn't
indicated by the {ma-} prefix isn't any weirder than it not being
indicated by the {cho-} prefix.

Notably, TKD says that the "no object" prefixes are used when there is
no object, or the object is unknown or vague. It does not say that
they cannot be used when there is an object, and in the prefix chart,
the "we-us" case is indicated by "--", with a note that these
combinations can't be expressed by the prefix system and requires the
use of suffixes and pronouns. And we already know that {ma-} can be
used when there is an object (implicitly, {maH}), with {-'egh} or
{-chuq}. So while {Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH} may *look* weird, and isn't
supported by any canon examples, I don't think it explicitly violates
any known rules (taking in account the prefix trick's modification of
what's in TKD). (Then again, I may just have missed something
completely obvious.)

-- 
De'vID