[97065] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: naj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Sat Aug 31 10:38:23 2013
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:37:54 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1fToq2BbtoLTarpDD0JdJMMsHmF42hnfmZHTgor_M4JGg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 8/30/2013 11:48 PM, Bellerophon, modeler wrote:
> Back to verb prefixes, I take it {jatlh} is the only verb that uses
> intransitive prefixes when a direct object is specified (in the case
> of {jatlh}, the direct quote).
A direct quotation is never an object. {jatlh} CAN take an object, as in
{SoQ vIjatlh} "I speak the lecture; I give a lecture." The prefix of
{jatlh} is the same as for any other verb.
> According to mughom.wikia.com <http://mughom.wikia.com> (who started
> that anyway? I see some contributions by Qurgh, but a lot more by
> Anonymous), the object of {ja'} is the addressee rather than the
> direct quote, so one uses it thus: yaS vIja' <direct quote>, rather
> than yaS jIja' <direct quote>.
The possible objects of {ja'} have never been clarified to my
satisfaction. No examples of {ja'} show an explicit object, but several
use prefixes that indicate an object (e.g., {qaja'pu'} "I told you").
But I think it would be perfectly reasonable to use sentences like {lut
vIja'pu'} "I told the story" or {Dotlh yIja'} "Report status!" Does
canon reflect a form of the prefix trick? Is the object of {ja'} broad
enough to reflect either a direct or indirect object? Or is that wiki
correct and the object is always the party being told something, and
that something can only ever be a direct quotation?
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
