[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Will Martin]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. More below.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:26 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks. I completely misunderstood. It sounded as if you were proposing something remarkably strange as an extension of something you’d seen.

> 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 respect his theory, though I’m not convinced that it is a generally acceptable truth that Klingon doesn’t need to distinguish between direct and indirect objects. I think it’s a mistake to overgeneralize the idea that any indirect object can be unmarked and placed as if it were the direct object, which is what it sounds like SuStel is suggesting if Klingon actually doesn’t distinguish between direct and indirect objects, unless both are present.

It does explain why it is apparently okay to say either {wo'rIv vIghojmoH} or {tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, (which is what *I* think is messy) though when we want both object types written, it comes out {wo’rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} (which I think is even MESSIER because Worf is the entity being caused to learn and in all the examples we were given of stative verbs with {-moH}, the entity being caused to have the state the verb describes, that noun was treated as a direct object, but for some reason, Worf is not), so apparently {wo’rIv vIghojmoH} could be more explicitly written as {wo’rIvvaD vIghojmoH}. I haven’t heard anyone suggest this is incorrect. It seems to be the case that it is correct, but that dropping the {-vaD} is optional, and commonly done.

And if that’s true for {wo’rIv} in this example, why is it not true for {pa’} in {pa’ tujmoH qul}? Since {wo’rIv} is the one who is caused to learn and {pa’} is the thing being caused to be hot, it follows that {pa’vaD tujmoH qul} should be the right and proper way to write “The fire heats the room.” The room is the beneficiary of the heating as much as Worf is the beneficiary of the teaching. Why do we draw a line here? What is the difference? Nobody has touched this yet, apparently because it is ugly and messy, so those arguing this point just ignore it and try to redirect the problem away from facing the grammatical issue at hand.

Yes, I’m being stubborn, but that’s because nobody has responded meaningfully to this point. They bring up OTHER points, but they don’t address THIS one. They say it’s not messy, when the mess is right there, looking at us.

Verbs that normally work with a direct object that then have {-moH} applied become exceptional in a rather messy way. I can handle them better as messy exceptions than I can accept them as clarifying examples that teach us about direct and indirect objects of verbs in general.

I think it falls apart when you compare {wo’rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} to {pa’ tujmoH qul}. If you could generalize from the former, the entity caused to learn is the indirect object, so in the latter, the entity caused to be hot should similarly be the indirect object. By this logic, it would not be wrong to write this as {pa’vaD tujmoH qul}. But that’s not how we’ve been writing this sort of thing for decades, and if it’s true, Okrand did a remarkably poor job of explaining it in TKD. More likely, he extended things a bit by putting {-moH} on a verb that already could take a direct object and he didn’t thoroughly think through the consequences.

> 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’}?

Simple: I don’t make sense out of {quv HIja’chuqQo’}. It looks like a mistake made by someone who looked up “discuss” and took that as the literal meaning of the Klingon verb {ja’chuq}, which more literally means “tell one another”, and decided that since “discuss” can take a direct object, so can {ja’chuq}.

So, unless {ja’chuq} has actually become a two-syllable verb (rare, but they do exist), much as {lo’laH} has become one, and these two verbs are now root verbs and do not mean what they would mean if they were still one-syllable verbs with a suffix, then this is a mistake. If Okrand said it, then Okrand made a mistake, and the only way out is to declare that {ja’chuq} is like {lo’laH}.

In case you don’t know the history of {lo’laH}, Okrand mistakenly used it adjectivally when {-laH} is not a suffix one can use on a verb adjectivally. It was a mistake. But it was canon. So Okrand had to declare that {lo’laH} is a different verb than {lo’}. So, while {pab vIlo’laH} (I can use grammar) is an example of the root verb {lo’} with {laH} added, {pIj lo’laH nuH} (A weapon is often valuable) is an example of a different verb, yielding such lovely sentences as {nuH lo’laH lo’laH.} “He can use a valuable weapon.”

So, if Okrand actually wrote {quv HIja’chuQo’}, then apparently {ja’chuq} has become a separate verb root from {ja’}, likely because of a mistake on Okrand’s part that has now become canon by fiat. It will make translations from English into Klingon simpler, but it will make some translations from Klingon to English more ambiguous.

Was that a canon example? Let me know. My eyes could use the exercise. Rolling.

But if that’s something YOU made up, then it’s a simple mistake. The verb {ja’} cannot be both followed by {-chuq} and preceded by a direct object. It violates basic Klingon grammar… unless {ja’chuq} actually is a different root verb. Okrand never told us that, if that is the case.

> 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}?

That works fine.

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

Yes. Or you could say {Qu’maj wIqeltaHvIS maja’chuq.} There are many ways around the desire to reveal what we are discussing.

But I’ve come up with another explanation for {quv HIja’chuqQo’!}…

If, like a lot of the Klingon that comes from Okrand, this is not punctuated, it could actually be:

{<<quv.>> HIja’chuqQo’!}

If the single word {quv} is a direct quote, then {HIja’chuqQo’!} is a command that you and I must not say to each other “Honor.” Remember that a direct quotation is not grammatically linked to the sentence of speech, and while Okrand previously used {jatlh} as the only common verb for speech, apparently he now uses {ja’} for both people talked to and things being said. So, if {ja’} is a verb of speech for the purposes of direct quotations, then the grammatically complete sentence is “Do not discuss with me!” and because {ja’} is a verb of speech, the grammatically independent sentence “Honor” is the direct quotation.

> 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.

… unless Okrand declares that {ja’chuq} is a new root verb we never knew about before. I hope he never does this.


...
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/d919b8df/attachment.html>