[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Will Martin]

I’m in the process of being swayed by the “valents” argument, trying to sort out the details of it, but I’ll point out that applying these ideas to {ja’} might be a poor choice if it’s being used as a verb of speech for direct quotation purposes, since that’s a special case with unusual grammar.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Nov 24, 2015, at 2:00 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151124/581d3164/attachment.html>