[74] in tlhIngan-Hol
which is the object? (long)
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:21:32 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
From: mosquito@Athena.MIT.EDU
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 91 02:22:25 -0500
In double-object constructions (indirect and direct object), which determines
the prefix of the verb? (all the examples I found in Okrand's book were
ambiguous because the two objects took the same prefix).
For example: I give you a ship
possible translations:
SoHvaD Duj vInob.
SoHvaD Duj qanob.
others?
My guess, from what I've learned about other languages, is that the direct
object would determine the verb prefix. This came up in a slightly
more interesting example, "teach"
For example: I teach you the Klingon Language.
possible translations:
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol qaghojmoH.
others?
The interesting part here is that, under other circumstances, I would
say that the object of "teach", or actually "cause to learn" is "you",
not "the Klingon language". The problem, you see, is there are two
objects, because in English there are two verbs, "cause" and "learn",
and each has its object. In fact, the subject of "learn", "you", acts
as an object of "cause". There's still some debate as to what this
means in English, not to mention on a universal grammar scale. But
the question is: in "cause to X", which is the object? The object of
what would, in English, be the verb "cause"? The object of X?
And is the other one an indirect object? -vaD indicates a beneficiary.
"You" can clearly be interpreted as a beneficiary in this case. It's
much more difficult to make a case for "Klingon Language" to hold a
beneficiary role in that sentence. If we say that "you" is the object,
does that make "Klingon Language" the indirect object? And what suffix
can we put on it to make indicate that fact, if not -vaD?
Furthermore, the lack of available object positions in -moH constructions
becomes apparent with "I caused torgh to give qeng a book". "book" ought
to get the -vaD suffix. The subject is "I". So we have torgh and qeng
to fit into a single direct object position of nobmoH.
Maybe Klingons don't say sentences like that...
==========
Another problem that comes from linguistic debate: passives and object
"promotion."
Suppose we take the sentence above:
SoHvaD Duj vInob.
(the question doesn't change much if you take the other possibility.)
What happens when the subject is made indefinite?
"Someone gives you a ship" = "You are given a ship"
Which becomes the subject? The object?
Possibilities:
SoHvaD Duj noblu'.
SoH Duj Dunoblu'.
SoH Dunoblu' Duj.
Duj SoH Danoblu'.
Duj Danoblu' SoH.
others?
Some questions here: do the syntactic "markers" "promote"
I.O. -> D.O. -> Subject
(D.O. = direct object, I.O. = indirect object)
when the "-lu'" suffix is used?
Let's look at the simpler case when there is no indirect object. The
promotion of D.O. to subject is suggested by the change of set of
prefixes used on the verb. Yet, the subject is still BEFORE the verb.
(c.f. "tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'" and "X tu'lu'".) Fundamentally, I
think, the D.O. does become the subject, and the fact that the subject
stays in the same place is only surface.
What happens with an indirect object? Does it promote to subject
instead? (English and a great many other languages do this, c.f.
"Johnny is given an apple.") But here, the indirect object is being
treated as a prepositional phrase. One might argue, therefore, that
it isn't an object of the verb at all, but an oblique prepositional
phrase like "in the morning". Thus, the D.O. would promote and the
beneficiary, as a prepositional phrase, would do nothing. Even in
English, when the indirect object is instead written as a
prepositional phrase, the direct object promotes: "An apple is given
to Johnny."
===
And what about -'egh (self)? It's only supposed to take intransitive
prefixes. But is that an artifact of a mechanism that eliminates the
object, making it like an intransitive sentence? If there's an
indirect object, does the verb then take a transitive prefix?
Another question is: What if the "self" is an indirect object?
I showed myself to the captain.
HoDvaD jIcha''eghta'.
HoDvaD vIcha''eghta'.
HoD vIcha''eghta'.
I taught myself the Klingon Language.
tlhIngan Hol jIghoj'eghmoH.
tlhIngan Hol vIghoj'eghmoH.
jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol vighojmoH.
I gave myself money.
Huch jInob'egh.
Huch vInob'egh.
jIHvaD Huch vInob.
jIHvaD Huch vInob'egh.
jIHvaD Huch jInob'egh.
My guess would be that if the "myself" is the direct object, the
indirect object is tacked on with no change, as if it were a
prepositional phrase like "in the morning." So we would get "HoDvaD
jIcha''eghta'." But when the "myself" is the indirect object, the
'egh cannot be used, so that "I gave myself money" would have to be
"jIHvaD Huch vInob."
An extremely large class of languages have reflexives (self) as noun-like
objects; as far as I know, no natural language makes them affixes to a verb
like Klingon does. Hence, this problem doesn't normally pop up.
======
I remember seeing a bunch of amateur linguists announce themselves to the list.
There might even be professional linguists here, too. Any answers? guesses?
comments?
\ /
--OO--
!!
mosquito@athena.mit.edu
Kevin Iga
