[Tlhingan-hol] {-meH}ed nouns

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

Earlier examples, and Okrand’s explanation in his interview in HolQeD suggest that {ja’} has a person as a direct object, while {jatlh} has a noun representing a speech or a language or something that is said as the direct object. Later, Okrand either changed his mind or got sloppy and used {ja’} in a way very similar to {jatlh}, so apparently either a person or a noun representing something spoken can be the direct object.

Meanwhile, direct quotes are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Okrand explained that direct quotes are grammatically independent of the sentence of speech (typically using {jatlh}) and can either precede or follow in either order.

So, if Qov told me, “Don’t bother me,” I’d translate that as either:

muja’ Qov <<HInuQQo’!>>

or

<<HInuQQo’!>> muja’ Qov.

Here, I chose to use {ja’} because I’m saying that she told ME. {jatlh} doesn’t take a person as a direct object, and since the quotation is not the direct object of the verb of speech, the prefix trick doesn’t work here. The {mu-}, in this case, tells you that I really am the direct object.

It would have been equally correct to say:

muja’ Qov. jatlh <<HInuQQo’!>>

or

<<HInuQQo’!>> jatlh Qov. muja’.

or even

muja’ Qov. <<HInuQQo!>> jatlh.

If I just wanted to tell you that Qov said, “Don’t bother me!”, I’d translate that as:

jatlh Qov <<HInuQQo’!>>

or

<<HInuQQo’!>> jatlh Qov.

In the second example, <<HInuQQo’!>> is NOT the direct object of {jalth}. There is no direct object for {jatlh}. These two sentences are simply adjacent to each other in either order. Neither is a direct object of the other.

When he introduced the idea of direct quotation to us, he said that {jatlh} was the only verb known to be used for direct quotation, but he left open the option to expand that list of verbs of speech that could do this, and over time he has done so, but keep in mind that it’s perfectly appropriate to say the following, though it will sound strange to you:

mutlhob Qov. jatlh. <<qatlh chonuQtaH?>>

Or

mutlhob Qov. <<qatlh chonuQtaH?>> jatlh.

It would probably even be okay to say:

<<qatlh chonuQtaH?>> jatlh Qov. mutlhob.

The issue here is that the sentence with {jatlh} and the quotation need to be adjacent to each other. The {tlhob} part is just there to clarify who is asking whom.

Yes, it seems odd to speak a question instead of asking it, but this is how Okrand initially explained that direct quotation works, and even if subsequent canon offers the use of a {tlhob} or {ghel}, his earlier explanation makes it perfectly good form to use {jatlh} as the verb of speech. While you can add color to the speech with “exclaimed, asked, pleaded, demanded,” or whatever, in Klingon you just use {jatlh}… and then later, he provided scattered examples of other verbs of speech used in this way. I’m not sure what the complete list is, but I am sure that {jatlh} is never wrong, and I’m pretty sure that {ja’} is acceptable, though less common.

So, SuStel may very well have been giving you good advice that was easily misinterpreted. In an earlier argument, I hung on the idea that {ja’} always had a person as the direct object while {jatlh} always had a unit of speech as the direct object. It is the way these verbs were introduced, and it gives the language a reason to have two different verbs for “said”. This difference was orderly, and I’m overly fixated on order.

SuStel argued that {ja’} could be used like {jatlh} with units of speech as the direct object and provided canon to prove it, so he’s completely right on this, and he has a special interest in objects, with the likely accurate theory that certain verbs have an interesting quality of using a couple of different kinds of nouns as a direct object, alone, or one of them becomes an indirect object, if both appear. {ja’} fits that theory.

In other words, {ja’} was introduced as having a person as a direct object, but maybe it’s really an indirect object and they don’t bother using {-vaD} unless {ja’} also has a unit of speech as a direct object. In other words, these are all correct:

SoQ ja’ SuStel.

ghunchu’wI’ ja’ SuStel.

ghunchu’wI’vaD SoQ ja’ SuStel.

So far as I can tell, SuStel is completely right about this, but it doesn’t apply to the example you gave because you were using direct quotation, and a direct quotation is not the direct object or indirect object of a sentence of speech. They are grammatically independent of each other.

I don’t think SuStel was trying to suggest otherwise. I think he just wanted to bring up an interesting point about the verb {ja’}, and it would likely be an error for you to interpret the direct quotation as the direct object. The sentence with {ja’} and the direct quotation can be placed in either order. There is no word order or conjunction or {‘e’} pronoun or other connection between the two sentences. They are independent, but adjacent.

Sorry to make this so long, but this is an important point in Klingon grammar that is explained ONLY in canon, in HolQeD, and in discussion with Okrand. It does not appear in TKD.

And it is strange. It’s not something one would likely intuit.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Jan 28, 2016, at 4:50 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> jIH :
> 
>> vIleghDI', jIja'egh *purpose clause* 'oH buvDaj'e'.
> 
> SuStel :
> 
>> We have canon of the object of {ja'} being either the person
>> addressed or the thing told about. I think it's likely that
>> the thing told about is the direct object and the person addressed
>> is the indirect object, but both are "objects" and can thus be
>> plugged into the object position.
> 
> So, this means I should write {vIleghDI', *purpose clause* 'oH
> buvDaj'e', jIja'egh} ?

Your original word order was not incorrect, though technically there should be a period after {jIja’egh}. Your offered correction is also correct, especially if you replace that last comma with a period.

If you had a noun representing some unit of speech, like {SoQ}, then it could be the direct object of {ja’}, and you’d say something like {jIHvaD SoQ vIja’. It doesn’t really work to use {-‘egh} in that case, because that doesn’t give you an option of grammatically including {SoQ} as a direct object. But a sentence being quoted is not behaving like a noun, and so it can’t be the direct object of anything.

> This actually addresses one of the questions I had about using {-meH}ed nouns.
> A question though I forgot to ask ; I was wondering.. The use {-meH}ed nouns,
> couldn't result in confusion in the sentence ? Couldn't someone be
> perplexed trying
> to figure out, if it is a {-meH}ed noun or a purpose clause ? Of
> course, if the reader
> was advanced and experienced, he would be able to figure this out. If
> it were though
> an average reader ? So, now that you mentioned it and I'm thinking of
> this again,
> I understand that by adding prefixes to a {-meH}ed noun, confusion
> could take place.

This would make more sense with examples. I don’t have time to make up examples now. I’ve used up too much time already. Suggest some, and the discussion can continue.
> ...
> cpt qunnoQ
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160128/c8aa002c/attachment-0001.html>