[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[Rohan Fenwick]

jIghItlhpu' jIH, jIjatlhpu':
> What is happening in Klingon is a clear and simple (in my eyes, at
> least) instance of syntactic demotion.

(poD HochHom)

jang SuStel, jatlh:
> What he said! :D

I hope I haven't been seeming like I've just ignored your comments on this matter, SuStel! I confess there was much of the initial parts of the discussion that I was just barely able to keep up with, never mind respond to. There are some ways in which I'm not sure I agree with you in terms of just how absent the semantic distinction is - for instance, where does one draw the line between the semantic indirect object and the semantic benefactive? Does {-vaD} actually kind of cover two clearly distinct types of semantic ground? Because where {-vaD} marks a genuine benefactive, as in {Qu'vaD lI' De'vam} "this information is useful for the mission" (TKD p.28), I'd have real issues with promoting {Qu'} to direct object. But in terms of the causative construction, at least, wa' DoS wIqIpba'mo' jIQuchbej je jIH. {{:)

taH:
> We get two more examples in paq'batlh:
> maHvaD lojmItmey tIpoSmoH
> Notice that it's not {lojmItmey ghopoSmoH}.

Though that said, {lojmItmey ghopoSmoH} should hypothetically be possible here. One wonders whether having the prefix trick or not here would make a difference in register or emphasis, but that's a question for some other time.

taH:
> QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH

chovnatlhmeyvam lI' juja'ta'mo' (pun not intended) qatlho'.

QeS 'utlh 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151125/5df4a909/attachment.html>