Taurks' question thread

[taurks]

Hi all,  I'm a klingon enthusiast from New York. I have some questions about Klingon which I can't find answers for.

Question 1: Indirect Objects in Klingon.

Okay - so, in the past I've seen Klingon speakers say tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a' and I know what they mean: The Klingon Language is the direct object and Dajatlh'a' means "Do you speak it". Simple enough. But then I've also seen people use qajalth to mean "I speak to you". Is that grammatically correct? Doesn't that technically mean "I speak you" and is improper Klingon?

Question 2: The lu' suffix

I understand how lu' is used, but just one question, but which one of these is correct:

Duj leghlu'
or
leghlu' Duj

I mean to say "The ship is seen / Somebody sees the ship". My guess would be Duj leghlu' but TKD doesn't give an example to confirm my suspicion.

Qapla',
taurks

[Jon]

Question 1: Indirect Objects
Normally these are marked with -vaD.

According to Okrand. regarding qajatlh, on the MSN expert forum: "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."

My understanding is yes, qajatlh means I speak to you.


Question 2: lu-
The correct form is Duj leghlu' for The ship is seen / Somebody sees the ship.

There are examples in TKD of this form:

 So'wI' chu'lu'ta'
 The cloaking device has been engaged. - TKD 73

 tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'
 My chronometer has stopped. - TKD 170

 quSDaq ba'lu''a'
 Is this seat taken? - TKD 171

[taurks]

Ah much obliged Jon! I apologize my post of thanks comes a week later. I have another question, if the jatlhwI'mey don't mind:


Question 3:
When using a verb with moH, how do you include the direct object and the object of the causing? For example, "I cause you to form a plan". plan is the direct object, so you'd use vI-, but then how would you indicate the "you"? I thought of something like:

nab qachenmoH

but that is improper grammar.

[Qunchuy]

I have another question, if the jatlhwI'mey don't mind:

The jatlhwI'pu' might object to being described that way. Remember that the proper plural suffix for beings capable of speech -- which jatlhwI' certainly are by definition -- is -pu'.

When using a verb with moH, how do you include the direct object and the object of the causing?

The easy answer is: you don't. If you absolutely must refer to both, you can phrase it using Z V Y 'e' qaSmoH X X causes to occur that X does V to Z, or more simply X causes Y to do V to Z.

[taurks]

Thanks for the speedy reply, Qunchuy!

I have another question, if the jatlhwI'mey don't mind:

The jatlhwI'pu' might object to being described that way. Remember that the proper plural suffix for beings capable of speech -- which jatlhwI' certainly are by definition -- is -pu'.

This is true. I thought about using pu' at first, but then opted for -mey for the "speakers all over the place" effect. I'm not exactly sure why I chose -mey over -pu', though I should probably just stick with -pu' from now on.

When using a verb with moH, how do you include the direct object and the object of the causing?

The easy answer is: you don't. If you absolutely must refer to both, you can phrase it using Z V Y 'e' qaSmoH X X causes to occur that X does V to Z, or more simply X causes Y to do V to Z.

Ah, very interesting. I had a feeling that things would boil down to circumlocution of the phrase alltogether. I didn't think of the way you described though, and now that I see it I quite like it 

qatlho',
Taurks