[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> 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}.

QeS 'utlh:
> There are a lot of problems with that idea. Firstly, what would the
> non-prefix-tricked version of this be?

{maHvaD quv wIja'}

QeS 'utlh:
> Secondly, the prefix trick can only
> *add* an object to the verb prefix, not delete one.

The object isn't deleted here, it's hidden by {-chuq}.

{SoHvaD quv vIja'} = {quv qaja'}
"I-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-you" = "I-tell-you honour"

{chaHvaD quv wIja'} = {quv DIja'}
"we-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-them" = "we-tell-them honour"

{maHvaD quv wIja'} = *{quv maja'chuq}
"We-tell-it honour for-the-benefit-of-us" = "We-tell-each-other honour"

The prefix trick changes the verb prefix. When you say that it "add"s
an object, I think you mean it changes "I-it (for you)" to "I-you it",
right? But the same thing is happening in my example: it changes
"we-it (for us)" to "we-us it", except that "we-us" is expressed as
{ma-} + {-chuq}.

QeS 'utlh:
> Thirdly, {maqIpchuq}
> doesn't mean the same thing as {qaqIp 'ej choqIp}. There need not be any
> second person involved at all in {maqIpchuq}, for that matter. It's
> misleading to talk about these things being "combined". Put another way: in
> English, we can quite happily say "I talk to you about honour" and "you talk
> to me about honour", but does the superficially "combined" version "I and
> you talk to you and me about honour" make any sense at all?

I think what you're saying here is that {maH} can mean "he and I" or
"she and I" and not just "you and I". You're right that Klingon "we"
can be either inclusive or exclusive, but I was just using an example.
We could have just as easily carried out the analysis with {jIHvaD}
and {ghaHvaD}, etc. Maybe it was confusing to break up "we" as "you
and I" in my example, and I should've just done everything as {maH}.

QeS 'utlh:
> Finally,
> combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix trick anyway, so talking
> about combining concepts "using the prefix trick" just doesn't make sense at
> all to me. I honestly just don't understand it.

Does the transformation of {maHvaD quv wIja'} into {quv maja'chuq}
make more sense?

1. the prefix trick lets us indicate the "indirect object" of the verb
by using a verb prefix that treats it as though it were the "direct
object"
2. when the subject and object are both {maH} and the subjects are
acting on each other, it's expressed as {ma-} with {-chuq}

To me, it does look just like an application of two rules together,
which is not to say that that's how they would work together.

Similarly:
{maHvaD Qu'maj wIqawmoH} = *{Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}

-- 
De'vID