[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[De'vID]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>>> Note that the prefix trick only works when the indirect object is first or second person. It’s never used with third person for all parties, as you suggest.

André Müller:
>> Well, do we know that it doesn't work with third persons?

SuStel:
> Okrand wrote in an MSN post:
>
>    When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or
>    second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first
>    or second person object may be used.
>
>    [...]
>
>    if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix indicating a first- or
>    second-person object, that first or second person is the indirect
>    object.

Okrand never actually stated that the prefix trick doesn't work for
third person indirect objects in the interview, only that it does work
for first and second person. The claim that it's "never" used with
third person for all parties is stronger than what he actually stated.

In the context of the interview, he was answering a specific question,
namely, whether {qajatlh} is correct Klingon. I believe he sidestepped
the issue of whether the prefix trick works with third person because
it would have complicated his answer due to the null prefix, and
because it was irrelevant to the question he was asked, not because
it's not allowed. (It may or may not be allowed, but it's not stated
in the MSN post.)

(I'm not, by the way, claiming that anything which isn't explicitly
forbidden is allowed, in case anyone should want to accuse me. I'm
just saying that Okrand's answer has to be taken in the context of the
question asked, and that it may be reading too much into his answer to
say that the prefix trick is "never" allowed for all third person
parties simply because he doesn't say that it's possible.)

In the paq'batlh, we have the following three lines:

{loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS / nIteb peghoS / HatlhDaq peleng}
"Kahless tells his brother and father / to go their separate ways, /
And travel the lands."

{toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je / QoymeH tlhIngan tuqmey / tIja'}
"To tell the Klingon tribes / their story of courage, / And honor."

{DaH peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tIja'}
"To tell them that now is the time / To take up their arms / And fight
against Molor."

We know that we can make the recipients of the speech explicit with
{-vaD}. {loDnI'DajvaD vavDajvaD je ja'} and {tlhIngan tuqmeyvaD peja'}
are grammatical sentences. We also know that {ja'} is a "verb of
speech", which can be used to give direct quotations by putting the
quotation next to the verb. (The quotation is not an object of the
verb for the purposes of deciding the verb prefix.)

In the first sentence, the object of {ja'} is {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je}.
The direct quotation is {nIteb peghoS, HatlhDaq peleng}. This sentence
could've been written as {loDnI'DajvaD vavDajvaD je ja' qeylIS / nIteb
peghoS / HatlhDaq peleng}. (While {ja'} takes the null prefix in both
cases, with the {-vaD} sentence, it indicates "he-none", whereas with
{loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} as the object, it indicates "he-them".)

What's interesting is that the second sentence has an object which is
not a direct quotation, {toDuj lutraj quv lutraj je}. It's actually
not so clear to me now whether the object of {tIja'} is {toDuj lutraj
quv lutraj je} or {tlhIngan tuqmey}, but it doesn't really matter, as
both sentences amount to the same meaning.

But the third sentence has a direct quotation again: {DaH peHarghchoH
/ DaH molor yISuvchoH}. In this sentence, the object of {tIja'} is
{tlhIngan tuqmey}. This sentence could've been written as {DaH
peHarghchoH / DaH molor yISuvchoH / tlhIngan tuqmeyvaD peja'}. (Note
that the prefix has to be {pe-} because the direct quotation is not an
object.)

I think André's analysis that this is the prefix trick (or something
very much like it) at work is right. Previously, I hypothesised that
{-vaD} may just have been dropped as an example of "clipped" speech in
the first sentence, but that doesn't explain why {peja'} became
{tIja'} in the third sentence. But the prefix trick explains this
perfectly.

I think the reason Okrand avoided third person objects in that MSN
post is because it leads to problems like this:
{tlhIngan Hol ghaHvaD jIjatlh} "I say to him, 'the Klingon language'."
{tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh} ??? "I say to him, 'the Klingon language'." OR
"I speak the Klingon language."

But in the case of the sentences from the paq'batlh, the meaning is
unambiguous. It may be begging the question to take the above three
sentences as evidence that the prefix trick is allowed for some third
person objects, and it's not entirely clear what the scope of the
evidence is. (Is it always allowed when the result is unambiguous?
Only in some limited circumstances that we don't yet know?)

The point, though, is that what Okrand wrote in that MSN post does not
explicitly rule out what André wrote. In fact, this part seems to
support it:
> Since the object of jatlh is
> that which is spoken, and since "you" or "I" or "we" cannot be spoken (and
> therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a
> pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first
> or second person is the indirect object.

By analogous reasoning, the object of {ja'} (being a verb of speech)
is that which is reported or told, and since {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} and
{tlhIngan tuqmey} cannot be reported or told, it follows that they are
the indirect object (the people who are being told). Okrand restricts
his explanation of the rule to /"you" or "I" or "we"/ not because
third-person objects aren't allowed, but because some third-person
objects can be spoken (like {tlhIngan Hol}). He never actually rules
out third-person objects which cannot be spoken.

I'm going to quote the whole interview below, and y'all can judge its
compatibility with André's analysis for yourselves. Nowhere does
Okrand actually state that the prefix trick is "never" used with all
third parties.

[[BEGIN QUOTE]]
> Does qajatlh mean anything? Some feel this is poor grammar. I'm not
> sure what to think. Can jatlh take an object other than a language?

The object of jatlh "speak" is that which is spoken.  Thus, it's OK to say
"speak a language," for example:

        tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon"
        (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it")

But it's also OK to say "speak an address, speak a lecture," for example:

        SoQ Dajatlh "you speak an address" or, more colloquially, "you
        deliver an address" or "you make a speech"

        (SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it")

To say simply:

        jatlh "he/she speaks"

implies "he/she speaks it," where "it" is a language or a lecture or
whatever.

The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is the hearer/listener.
Thus:

        qama'pu'vaD tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon to the prisoners"
        (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language,"
        Dajatlh "you speak it")

        qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the prisoners"
        (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ "speech, lecture, address,"
        Dajatlh "you speak it")

When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or second
person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second
person object may be used.  There are other examples of this sort of thing
with other verbs.  For example, someone undergoing the Rite of Ascension
says:

        tIqwIj Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] my heart"
        (tIqwIj "my heart," Sa'angnIS "I must show you [plural] it")

The pronominal prefix in this phrase is Sa-, which means "I [do something
to] all of you" in such sentences as:

        Salegh "I see you [plural]"

but when there's already an object (in this case, tIqwIj "my heart"), the
"object" of the prefix is interpreted as the indirect object, so Sa- means
"I [do something to] it for you" or the like.

This, then, brings us back to your question.  Since the object of jatlh is
that which is spoken, and since "you" or "I" or "we" cannot be spoken (and
therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a
pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first
or second person is the indirect object.

Which is a not very elegant way of saying that qajatlh means "I speak to
you" or, more literally, perhaps "I speak it to you," where "it" is a
language or a speech or whatever:

        qajatlh "I speak to you"

        Sajatlh "I speak to you [plural]"

        chojatlh "you speak to me"

        tlhIngan Hol qajatlh "I speak Klingon to you"
        (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," qajatlh "I speak it to you")

There's another wrinkle to this.  The verb jatlh can also be used when
giving direct quotations:

        tlhIngan jIH jatlh "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"
        (tlhIngan "Klingon," jIH "I," jatlh "speak")

        jatlh tlhIngan jIH "he/she says, 'I am a Klingon'"

(With verbs of saying, such as jatlh, the phrase that is being said or
cited may come before or after the verb.)

If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating
"no object" is used:

        tlhIngan jIH jIjatlh "I say, 'I am a Klingon'"
        (jIjatlh "I speak")

        tlhIngan jIH bIjatlh "you say, 'I am a Klingon'"
        (bIjatlh "you speak")

There are instances where the pronominal prefix marks a big distinction in
meaning:

        tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh "you speak Klingon"
        (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," Dajatlh "you speak it")

        tlhIngan Hol bIjatlh "you say, 'Klingon language'" [that is "you say
        the phrase 'Klingon language'"]
        (tlhIngan Hol "Klingon language," bIjatlh "you speak")
[[END QUOTE]]

-- 
De'vID