[Tlhingan-hol] {-meH}ed nouns

[mayql qunenoS]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :

> 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.

Thank you very much for explaining all this. I find this information
extremely interesting and important.

> But a sentence being quoted is not behaving like a noun,
> and so it can’t be the direct object of anything.

This is a beautiful point/explanation.

SuStel :

> Again, let us be clear. Klingon sentence structure is of the form
> O-V-S. The "O" means "object." It does --->***NOT*<--- mean "direct object."
> Being a direct object is a SEMANTIC role that the object may play; being an
> indirect object is also a semantic role the object may play. Direct objects and
> indirect objects can both be used in the object slot, but only one noun (phrase)
> can appear in the object slot at a time, and different verbs allow different kinds
> of noun (phrases) in their object slots.

This is beautiful too.


Anyway, thank you very much lojmIt tI'wI' nuv and SuStel, for taking
the time to explain all this to me. I have to admit though that the
whole matter is pretty complicated. I definitely need to review all
this information many times, and apply it too, in order to really
assimilate it.

qunnoq HoD

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:49 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 1/28/2016 9:59 AM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>>
>> Earlier examples, and Okrand’s explanation in his interview in HolQeD
>> suggest that {ja’} has a person as a direct object,
>
>
> You suggested that; he did not confirm it.
>
>    WM: And a typical direct object of {ja'} would be the person
>    addressed and a typical object of the verb {jatlh} would be the
>    thing you say.
>
>    MO: The speech event.
>
>    WM: I like that term.
>
>    MO: Including a direct quote. I'm telling a story. He "blah, blah,
>    blah" {jatlh}.
>
>> while {jatlh} has a noun representing a speech or a language or
>> something that is said as the direct object.
>
>
> Okrand stated this in an MSN posting, not in the HolQeD interview.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Since he never committed to direct objects for {ja'}, he didn't get sloppy
> or change his mind.
>
> When looking at a Klingon sentence's syntax we can tell what is an "object"
> or not based on where it is, but not whether it's a direct object or an
> indirect object. There doesn't seem to be an absolute rule regarding those.
> MOST of the time the object is a direct object, but not always.
>
> {ja'} is just one of those cases where the object could be either the direct
> object or the indirect object, depending on context. Some {-moH}'d verbs
> also do this.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> I don't think this is the difference between {ja'} and {jatlh}. {jatlh}
> means to speak, regardless of whether someone is hearing you. It means to
> make vocal sounds. It might imply doing so only in prose, but we don't know
> that. {ja'}, on the other hand, implies communication, imparting of
> information. It doesn't necessarily—I think—require vocal sounds.
>
>> {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. >
>
>
> This is incorrect. In his MSN post, Okrand explained that the prefix trick
> CAN be used with {jatlh} to show an indirect object:
>
>    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")
>
>> When he introduced the idea of direct quotation to us,
>
>
> In TKD? That's where he first uses it.
>
>    qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'
>    HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'
>    I told you not to interrupt me
>
>> 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,
>
>
> In his interview with you he said that {jatlh} and {ja'} were the only verbs
> of saying (to use the term used in TKD) that he knew about. This immediately
> contradicted the older Power Klingon examples of {tlhob} as a verb of
> saying:
>
>    lutlhob naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
>    They ask him, "Can we get to the Great Hall from here?"
>
>> 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,
>
>
> Verbs of saying were introduced in TKD without any explicit objects at all,
> only verb prefixes. This does not tell us whether the prefixes are referring
> to direct or indirect objects; prefixes can refer to either kind of object.
>
> Since then we've gotten examples of {ja'} with both people being told and
> things being reported as the explicit object of {ja'}. As usual, we work out
> whether they're direct or indirect based on context, not sentence position
> or inflection.
>
>> and it gives the language a reason to have two different verbs for
>> “said”.
>
>
> {ja'} does not mean "say," it means "report, tell." In English, these words
> have different connotations.
>
>> 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,
>
>
> The canon comes from TKD, which uses {ja'} as its example of a verb of
> saying. Subsequent canon has used {jatlh} and {tlhob} as verbs of saying.
> Okrand wasn't sure there weren't more verbs of saying than {jatlh} and
> {ja'}, but my theory, which I don't push on anyone, is that anything that
> SEEMS like a verb of saying can be used as a verb of saying ({tlhob, ghel,
> jach, tlhup,} etc.).
>
>> 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.
>
>
> That some verbs can use different kinds of nouns as direct object is stated
> flatly by Okrand in his MSN post, where he says {jatlh} can have as a direct
> object either the language spoken or the "speech event."
>
> Again, let us be clear. Klingon sentence structure is of the form O-V-S. The
> "O" means "object." It does --->***NOT*<--- mean "direct object." Being a
> direct object is a SEMANTIC role that the object may play; being an indirect
> object is also a semantic role the object may play. Direct objects and
> indirect objects can both be used in the object slot, but only one noun
> (phrase) can appear in the object slot at a time, and different verbs allow
> different kinds of noun (phrases) in their object slots.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol