[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

On 11/23/2015 8:26 AM, De'vID wrote:

> 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.

Based on just the rules of {-chuq} in TKD, I would say that no explicit 
object is allowed with a {-chuq} verb, and the verb prefix must indicate 
"no object."

However, we have at least that one example from paq'batlh, so either the 
example (examples?) is in error or the rule in TKD isn't complete.

Given {quv HIja'chuqQo'}, my first guess would be what QeS has 
suggested: that {ja'chuq} has become a lexicalized unit. In that case, 
we have a perfectly ordinary situation, in which the object represents a 
semantic direct object (or, more properly, a theme) and the verb prefix 
indicates a semantic indirect object (or, more property, a recipient).

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

This works too, but it's a little roundabout. You're saying you're 
conferring and you're saying what the topic is, but you're not 
explicitly saying that you're conferring about the topic. It would be 
like saying in English, "Honor. We have a discussion." Obviously, the 
discussion is about honor, but you didn't quite say that.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/