[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

On 11/23/2015 11:38 AM, Will Martin 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 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.

Why do you keep changing my words into something I didn't say? Klingon 
SYNTAX doesn't distinguish between direct and indirect object. Klingon 
SEMANTICS do.

Do you understand the difference between syntax and semantics? I'm 
pretty sure you don't. I assume you're not TRYING to be a jerk, so I'm 
left with the conclusion that you simply don't get it. But every time we 
argue, your tactic is to reword what I said into a straw man you can 
take pot shots at. batlhHa' bIghoH 'e' yImev jay'!

> 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.

I HAVE addressed this. Without a patient or theme, a beneficiary or 
receiver takes the object position.

> 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}.

Okrand translated it. One of the grammarians at a qep'a' checked it. It 
is in a canon source.

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