[102464] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC : Sentences as objects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Fri Nov 20 09:43:09 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:42:50 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <564DDCC4.7090106@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============0510399855309514252==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6F3D27F-B7D7-43FB-83BE-2D272356CEA7"
--Apple-Mail=_F6F3D27F-B7D7-43FB-83BE-2D272356CEA7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
While I agree with the canon evidence that sometimes the direct object =
of {ja=E2=80=99} can be the unit of speech (a word, a sentence, a =
speech, a spoken part in an opera or whatever), the existence of =
{ja=E2=80=99chuq} pretty much nails the simple fact that SOMETIMES (if =
not most of the time) the direct object of {ja=E2=80=99} is definitely =
the person being addressed. There is no prefix trick here. Two or more =
speaking individuals are =E2=80=9Ctelling each other=E2=80=9D. I =
challenge you to find any other verb where {-chuq} was used to indicate =
an indirect object with some other direct object being used. Maybe you =
can answer that challenge, but until then, this case is pretty much =
closed.
The meaning of {-chuq} very simply is that members of a group are both =
subject and object of the action of the verb. That=E2=80=99s not really =
debatable.
Meanwhile, there is no example of {*jatlhchuq}, and so far as I=E2=80=99ve=
seen, no example in canon of {jatlh} used with a person as the direct =
object.
The other difference is that {jatlh} is obviously used with a language =
as the direct object, and so far that=E2=80=99s never been the case with =
{ja=E2=80=99}.
What canon suggests is that people are direct objects only of {ja=E2=80=99=
}, and languages are the direct objects of only {jatlh}, and either verb =
can have some kind of utterance as the direct object. Early examples =
seem to prefer {jatlh} for utterances and this one more recent body of =
work seems to strongly prefer {ja=E2=80=99} for this.
Perhaps there=E2=80=99s some other difference in meaning which would =
lead one to prefer one over the other for a particular statement about =
an utterance, but I don=E2=80=99t think that anyone here has managed a =
clear analysis that would help the rest of us know which to prefer in =
any given instance.
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:29 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>=20
> On 11/19/2015 5:25 AM, De'vID wrote:
>=20
>> TKD is full of examples of {ja'} used with the person addressed as =
the
>> object. No need to list those.
>=20
> But one must point out that it's impossible to say whether the person =
addressed is the direct object or the indirect object.
>=20
> qaja'pu'
>=20
> Is it:
>=20
> [SoH] qaja'pu'
>=20
> or
>=20
> [SoHvaD] qaja'pu'
>=20
> (don't interpret those as sentences; they're meant to be illustrations =
of the target of the prefix)
>=20
> ?
>=20
> Both are allowed when one considers the prefix trick.
>=20
> Nearly every example in canon has this ambiguity.
>=20
>> The {paq'batlh}
>=20
> I keep forgetting to bring it with me to work for reference. We gotta =
get this thing published for Kindle so I can search it!
>=20
>> has a number of instances of {ja'} where the content of what's told
>> is the object of {ja'}:
>>=20
>> {Qo'noSDaq boqwI'mey / nejmeH je leng qeylIS / 'ej chaHvaD lut ja'}
>> "Kahless also went out to search / For allies across Kronos, / And
>> told them his tale."
>>=20
>> {wIj jup / SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe' / jIHvaD ratlh pagh}
>> "Dear old friend, / I cannot speak of my tragedies, / There is =
nothing
>> left for me."
>=20
> This clinches it for me: the direct object of {ja'} is the thing told, =
not the person told to.
>=20
>> The {paq'batlh} also has some instances where the person addressed is
>> the object of {ja'}. So it has both.
>=20
> Anything explicit? Or just more prefix-trick ambiguity?
>=20
>> There's also this phrase from the greeting video sent out by Marc
>> Okrand about the opera {'u'}:
>> {qatlh tlhIngan lut luja' tera'ngan DawI'pu'lI'?}
>> Why are your earthling actors telling a Klingon story?
>=20
> Direct object is thing told, not person told to.
>=20
>> It seems to me that the way to make sense of all of this is that,
>> while in proper grammar the object of {ja'} is the thing reported and
>> the recipient is indicated with {-vaD}, in "typical" usage it just
>> happens to be the case that the prefix trick is applied very often
>> with this verb, making it look as if the person addressed is the
>> "typical" object.
>=20
> Exactly.
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_F6F3D27F-B7D7-43FB-83BE-2D272356CEA7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">While I agree with the canon evidence that =
sometimes the direct object of {ja=E2=80=99} can be the unit of speech =
(a word, a sentence, a speech, a spoken part in an opera or whatever), =
the existence of {ja=E2=80=99chuq} pretty much nails the simple fact =
that SOMETIMES (if not most of the time) the direct object of {ja=E2=80=99=
} is definitely the person being addressed. There is no prefix trick =
here. Two or more speaking individuals are =E2=80=9Ctelling each =
other=E2=80=9D. I challenge you to find any other verb where {-chuq} was =
used to indicate an indirect object with some other direct object being =
used. Maybe you can answer that challenge, but until then, this case is =
pretty much closed.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The meaning of {-chuq} very simply is that members of a group =
are both subject and object of the action of the verb. That=E2=80=99s =
not really debatable.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Meanwhile, there is no example of {*jatlhchuq}, and so far as =
I=E2=80=99ve seen, no example in canon of {jatlh} used with a person as =
the direct object.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The other difference is that {jatlh} is obviously used with a =
language as the direct object, and so far that=E2=80=99s never been the =
case with {ja=E2=80=99}.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">What canon suggests is that people are direct objects only of =
{ja=E2=80=99}, and languages are the direct objects of only {jatlh}, and =
either verb can have some kind of utterance as the direct object. Early =
examples seem to prefer {jatlh} for utterances and this one more recent =
body of work seems to strongly prefer {ja=E2=80=99} for this.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Perhaps there=E2=80=99s =
some other difference in meaning which would lead one to prefer one over =
the other for a particular statement about an utterance, but I don=E2=80=99=
t think that anyone here has managed a clear analysis that would help =
the rest of us know which to prefer in any given instance.</div><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 19, 2015, at 9:29 AM, SuStel <<a =
href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" =
class=3D"">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">On 11/19/2015 5:25 =
AM, De'vID wrote:<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">TKD is full of examples of {ja'} used with the person =
addressed as the<br class=3D"">object. No need to list those.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">But one must point out that it's =
impossible to say whether the person addressed is the direct object or =
the indirect object.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">qaja'pu'<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">Is it:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">[SoH] =
qaja'pu'<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">or<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">[SoHvaD] qaja'pu'<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">(don't =
interpret those as sentences; they're meant to be illustrations of the =
target of the prefix)<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">?<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">Both are allowed when one considers the prefix trick.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">Nearly every example in canon has this =
ambiguity.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">The {paq'batlh}<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">I =
keep forgetting to bring it with me to work for reference. We gotta get =
this thing published for Kindle so I can search it!<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">has a number of =
instances of {ja'} where the content of what's told<br class=3D"">is the =
object of {ja'}:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{Qo'noSDaq boqwI'mey / =
nejmeH je leng qeylIS / 'ej chaHvaD lut ja'}<br class=3D"">"Kahless also =
went out to search / For allies across Kronos, / And<br class=3D"">told =
them his tale."<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{wIj jup / SengmeywIj =
vIja'laHbe' / jIHvaD ratlh pagh}<br class=3D"">"Dear old friend, / I =
cannot speak of my tragedies, / There is nothing<br class=3D"">left for =
me."<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">This clinches it for me: =
the direct object of {ja'} is the thing told, not the person told to.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">The =
{paq'batlh} also has some instances where the person addressed is<br =
class=3D"">the object of {ja'}. So it has both.<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Anything explicit? Or just more =
prefix-trick ambiguity?<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D"">There's also this phrase from the greeting =
video sent out by Marc<br class=3D"">Okrand about the opera {'u'}:<br =
class=3D"">{qatlh tlhIngan lut luja' tera'ngan DawI'pu'lI'?}<br =
class=3D"">Why are your earthling actors telling a Klingon story?<br =
class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Direct object is thing told, not =
person told to.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D"">It seems to me that the way to make sense of all of this is =
that,<br class=3D"">while in proper grammar the object of {ja'} is the =
thing reported and<br class=3D"">the recipient is indicated with {-vaD}, =
in "typical" usage it just<br class=3D"">happens to be the case that the =
prefix trick is applied very often<br class=3D"">with this verb, making =
it look as if the person addressed is the<br class=3D"">"typical" =
object.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Exactly.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">-- <br class=3D"">SuStel<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"http://trimboli.name" class=3D"">http://trimboli.name</a><br =
class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org<br=
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_F6F3D27F-B7D7-43FB-83BE-2D272356CEA7--
--===============0510399855309514252==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============0510399855309514252==--
