[78] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: which is the object? (long)
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:21:45 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
From: mark@cc.gatech.edu (Mark J. Reed)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 91 13:12:36 EST
In-Reply-To: <9112300722.AA12460@hodge>; from "mosquito@Athena.MIT.EDU" at Dec
The following is my interpretation, based on my knowledge of English and
Klingon. Please note that I am not an official grammarian.
\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).
There is no "double object" in Klingon, though. The "indirect object"
construction in the addendum adds the equivalent of a prepositional phrase; the
verb itself still has only one object, which determines the prefix. When there
is ambiguity in English, rephrase the sentence using "to". For example, in "I
teach you the Klingon language", "you" is the indirect object and "the Klingon
language" is the direct object. To see this, rephrase it as "I teach the
Klingon language to you". Note that this is also the literal meaning of the
Klingon construction, so there is no ambiguity:
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.
The fact that "teach" is really "cause to learn" doesn't affect the
construction; "ghojmoH" is only one verb in Klingon, with the meaning of
"teach".
\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...
The "-moH" construct is used to form a new verb, not to combine
sentences. "nobmoH" is "cause to give"; but if you need multiple objects, then
you really don't have a single verb anymore. "I caused torgh to give qeng a
book" would be translated using the complex sentence constructions:
qengvaD paq nobpu' torgh 'e' vIqaSmoH.
(literally, "I caused it to happen that Torg gave the book to Kang.").
\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?
This problem also comes from a confusion of the two objects. The
object of the verb "to give" is the ship, so in the indefinite form, the
ship is the subject:
SoHvaD Duj noblu'.
\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?
No; the I.O. is still the I.O.; the D.O. is now the subject. (This
is not grammatcially awkward because, as noted, the I.O. is not really an I.O
grammatically.)
\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.
An interesting point. You could just as easily say that the direct
object doesn't really "promote" and that the use of the different prefix is
only "surface". In either case you have an exception to a rule, and it's not
really clear which it is.
\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."
This is what I stated above. I think this is the correct
interpretation.
\===
\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?
More of the same confusion. Since the I.O. in Klingon is not an
"object" for the purposes of practically anything, the answer is no.
If the "self" is the indrect object, then you wouldn't use the "'egh" suffix:
\I taught myself the Klingon Language.
\jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.
\I gave myself money.
\jIHvaD Huch vInob.
Not
\jIHvaD Huch vInob'egh.
You're not giving yourself; you're giving the money. Therefore the use of
"'egh" is inappropriate.
\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."
I agree.
\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 haven't run across it before, but it could very well pop up in other
agglutinative languages (e.g. Eskimo, perhaps?). Not being familiar with them,
I can't say...
\I remember seeing a bunch of amateur linguists announce themselves to the list
