[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[David Holt]

I'm going to avoid using {ghoj} or {jatlh} because I'm not trying to step into the argument over classes of objects right now.

My own personal opinion (however good or bad it may be) is that the subject of the root sentence must always be represented somewhere in the {-moH} sentence.  Following are the rules that I suppose for creating a Klingon sentence and then for trying to analyze a Klingon sentence.  Just to be clear, when I say "root sentence" I am referring to the action that the subject of a {-moH} sentence is causing, stated as a complete sentence.  (i.e. the root sentence of {tlhInganvaD jagh qIpmoH yaS} is {jagh qIp tlhIngan.})

Creating a Klingon sentence:

1. If there is no object of the root sentence, then the subject of the root sentence must be represented in the object portion of the verb prefix and may be explicitly stated in the solo object position.

2. If there is an object of the root sentence, then the subject of the root sentence must be either explicitly stated using {-vaD} (in which case the prefix must match the object of the root sentence) OR(either, but not both) the subject of the root sentence may be hidden in the object portion of the verb prefix (i.e. by the prefix trick, which may not work for the third person and so then third person indirect objects would have to be explicitly stated with {-vaD} when there is an object of the root sentence).

Thus when trying to understand a Klingon {-moH} sentence:

1. If a noun with {-vaD} appears and an unmarked noun appears, then the {-vaD} noun is the subject of the root sentence and the unmarked noun is the object of the root sentence.  The prefix used must match the subject of the {-moH} sentence and the object of the root sentence - if it does not, then I believe it to be an ungrammatical sentence.

2. If a noun with {-vaD} appears, but no other object noun appears, then the {-vaD} noun is the subject of the root sentence and an object must exist on the root sentence (otherwise the subject of the root sentence would have taken the place of the object on the {-moH} sentence.  Thus if only the indirect object (with {-vaD}) is present, the verb prefix will indicate the missing object, but never indicate a "none" object (if it does, then I believe it to be an ungrammatical sentence.)

3. If no {-vaD} noun appears, but an unmarked object noun exists then that object could be either the subject of the root sentence or the object of the root sentence with the prefix trick indicating the subject of the root sentence.  If third person prefix tricks are allowed, then you have to guess based on context whether a third person object on the prefix indicates the stated subject of the root sentence or indicates a third person indirect object and the stated object is the object of the root sentence.  If third person prefix tricks are not allowed, then a third person object in the prefix indicates that the stated object is the subject of the root sentence and any other object in the prefix indicates that the stated object is the object of the root sentence and the object in the prefix is the subject of the root sentence.

4. If no stated object nouns of any type exist, then the root sentence never had an object and the object portion of the prefix can only indicate the subject of the root sentence.

It may seem complicated, but it's quite simple if you stick to the idea that the subject of the root sentence MUST appear somewhere in the {-moH} sentence.

So (ignoring the possibility of unmarked plurals since that complicates the analysis, but doesn't change the point I'm making):

{tlhInganvaD jagh qIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes the Klingon hit the enemy."

{jIHvaD jagh qIpmoH yaS} can only mean, the officer makes me hit the enemy."

{tlhInganvaD qIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes the Klingon hit him/her/it/them."

{tlhInganvaD muqIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes the Klingon hit me."

{jagh muqIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes me hit the enemy."

{tlhIngan qIpmoH yaS} can mean, "the officer makes the Klingon hit."  If, and only if, a third person prefix trick is allowed, then in the right context, it could also mean, "the officer makes him/her/it/them hit the Klingon," but it would probably be clearer to add a pronoun with {-vaD} in such a case.

{qIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes him/her/it/them hit."

{muqIpmoH yaS} can only mean, "the officer makes me hit."

{choqIpmoH} can only mean, "you make me hit."

Using {-lu'}, to make one of the subjects general, obviously makes things a little more complicated, but is still clearly able to be analyzed.  The only way to say, "the officer makes the enemy get hit," would be with, {jagh qIpmoHlu' yaS}.  {muqIpmoHlu' yaS} would have to be, "The officer makes me get hit."  The existence of a subject on those two makes it clear that the {-lu'} is referring to the root sentence.  {tlhInganvaD jagh qIpmoHlu'} would have to be, "The Klingon is made to hit the enemy."  {jagh muqIpmoHlu'} would have to be, "I am made to hit the enemy."  The existence of an indirect object in both cases makes it clear that the subject of the root sentence is not general.  I don't believe you can say, "an enemy is made to be hit," because the {-lu'} can only be used to generalize one subject.

I've seen some very interesting arguments for why the grammar would work this way, but at this moment I am less concerned with why and just want to confirm that these assumptions seem accurate.  If my assumptions are correct AND(also) if a third person prefix trick is NOT allowed, then each sentence can have only one meaning and there are no issues with clarity.  If my assumptions are correct AND(also) a third person prefix trick IS allowed then there can be some confusion when an unmarked object and a third person object prefix is used (likely the most common version of the {-moH} sentence).  In that case, I am satisfied to rely on context for clarification, but I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable.

I understand that it is a burden to ask you to rehash some of what has already been said, but I would love it if some of you could point out any canon examples that conflict with what I have said and/or other reasons why you feel I have erred.

Jeremy