Klingon Imperial Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
12 12, 2017, 06:36: AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Realtime chats are now following a freeform schedule.  If you would like to chat with you fellows please see the It's Talk Time thread for more info or to schedule a chat.
11894 Posts in 1664 Topics by 689 Members
Latest Member: regdun234
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Klingon Imperial Forums
|-+  Klingon Language & Culture
| |-+  Klingon Language
| | |-+  General Language Discussion in English
| | | |-+  Ordering of overt object noun phrases in ditransitives
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Ordering of overt object noun phrases in ditransitives  (Read 2310 times)
lfl
Novice
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: 05 30, 2013, 08:39: PM »

Hi there,

upon encountering the verb nob - 'give' in the vocabulary list of the TKD I began wondering about how Klingon ditransitives work when using overt lexical noun phrases for both the direct and the indirect object, e.g. in the sense of engl. 'The/a man gave the/a woman the/a book.' or when using overt/unbound pronouns as described in TKD §5.1 (I know the TKD explicitly states that such pronounds are seldom or rather used solely for the purpose of emphasis but let's just assume for argumentative purposes that we want to use them). My question is: What is the ordering of direct and indirect object?

After reading $4.11 on ter'eS Klingon Pages' Grammar Addendum which explains the "prefix-trick" by means of the example sentence SoHvaD paq vInob my guess would be the order is INDIR.OBJ(IO) - DIR.OBJ(DO) - V - SUBJ. So for the sentence from ter'eS Pages we have:

IODOVS
SoH-vaDpaqvI-nob
pro.2Sfor(nsfx5)book1S(Subj).3S(Obj)give
'I gave you a book.'

and thus, in analogy, the object ordering for my example sentence mentioned above would be:

IODOVS
be'paqnobloD
womanbookgiveman
'The man gave the woman a book.'

Is this assumption correct?

I hope the glosses or rather the whole posting is understandable  Cheesy

Thanks in advance!
Logged
chalvatlh
Klingon formerly Known as Fraek
Discoursing Diplomat
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 397


In order to succeed, you must enjoy eating poison!


« Reply #1 on: 05 31, 2013, 01:18: AM »

The word order is fine, but the prefix trick only works when you have a third-person direct object and a first/second-person indirect object (or "beneficiary"). That way, you can state the indirect object using a noun and the direct object using a prefix without risk of ambiguity.

So, for example, paq qanob. works because there is a mismatch between the qa- prefix and the object paq. "Your prefix says the prefix is 'you', but your noun says it is 'book' ... oh, it must be the prefix trick!"
The same can not be said for be' paq vInob., which is a perfectly good way of stating "I give the woman's book."

When both the direct object and the beneficiary are third-person, you need to use the -vaD suffix:
be'vaD paq vInob.

Likewise, even if you don't make the direct object explicit, you still need the -vaD; there is a very big difference between be'vaD vInob. and be' vInob..
Logged
lfl
Novice
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #2 on: 05 31, 2013, 10:35: AM »

Okay, so obviously I do not understand the 'prefix-trick'.

First: I deduce that, according to your post, the second sentence of the above mentioned example is not correct and thus has to be stated as:

IODOVS
be'-vaDpaqnobloD
womanfor(nsfx5)bookgiveman
'The man gave the woman a book.'

is that right?

Second: What about leaving out the beneficiary-suffix in case of the sentence with the overt pronoun as the indirect object. In that case what is the correct verb prefix?

IODOVS
SoHpaqvI-nob
pro.2Sbook1S(Subj).3S(Obj)give
'I gave you a book.'

or

IODOVS
SoHpaqqa-nob
pro.2Sbook1S(Subj).2S(Obj)give
'I gave you a book.'

or none? Is it even possible to omit the -vaD or is -vaD in fact obligatory whenever there is an overt NP expressing the IO regardless of it being a lexical or pronominal NP?
My thoughts regarding the second sentence without -vaD are: Since, according to the TKD, pronouns are not used for possessive constructions there is no danger of misinterpreting the two overt NPs as a possessive construction resembling your example  "I give the woman's book."


Logged
ghunwI
Novice
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #3 on: 06 01, 2013, 04:52: AM »

Firstly, be'vaD paq nob loD is correct
Secondly, I don't think it's possible to omit the -vaD suffix. There are no examples of it. It is either SoHvaD paq vInob or paq qanob. SoHvaD paq qanob is also correct, but redundant. jIH also means viewing screen so jIH paq vInob could mean I give the viewing screen's book
« Last Edit: 06 01, 2013, 01:51: PM by ghunwI » Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!