[111415] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 04:11:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:32:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOtnibbuiyLf4id2r+c5qcsp3-kZ_FafDnny8Hj6sFKeeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6218345951970615827==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------64AF90842128FCA3FF2341EB"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------64AF90842128FCA3FF2341EB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 12:33 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> I don't think you can use it for any application of *-vaD,* only
> for when *-vaD* indicates an indirect object. In your *qaHoHqang*
> example, for instance, *SoH* is not an indirect object: *SoH*
> benefits from the action, but the action does not result in
> something actually given to *SoH.*
>
> Out of the three verbs I can think of that have been used with the
> prefix trick -- *nob*, *'ang*, and *jatlh* -- only the first involves
> actually giving someone something. In the case of *tIqwIj Sa'angnIS*
> or *tlhIngan Hol qajatlh*, *tlhIH* or *SoH* are benefiting from the
> action but aren't really getting anything out of it physically.
I didn't say anything about /physically./ The target of the prefix is
someone who receives the outcome of the action. *Sa'ang:*//you receive
the outcome of my showing, you see something; *qajatlh:* you receive the
outcome of my speaking, you hear something. But with *muqab*, I don't
receive the outcome of its being bad. Nothing actually happens to me.
> (Also, is the assumed distinction between meanings of *-vaD* a
> carryover from the ways that suffix is translated into English? Do
> Klingon grammarians make a distinction between the *jIHvaD* in *jiHvaD
> taj Danobpu'* and in *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq*?)
I don't think so. I think Okrand was looking for a way to express
"indirect object," and saw that *-vaD* often did that job, because one
sort of beneficiary is an indirect object. So he gives it this role in
TKD Addendum 6.8. "The indirect object may be considered the
beneficiary," not that the beneficiary may be considered the indirect
object.
And the prefix trick works with indirect objects, not beneficiaries.
You can look at it this (inexact) way: Klingon has the distinct semantic
roles of "indirect object" and "benefactive," and both are marked with
the "beneficiary" suffix, *-vaD.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------64AF90842128FCA3FF2341EB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 12:33 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtnibbuiyLf4id2r+c5qcsp3-kZ_FafDnny8Hj6sFKeeQ@mail.gmail.com">On
Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote: <br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I don't think you can use it for any application of <b>-vaD,</b>
only for when <b>-vaD</b> indicates an indirect object. In
your <b>qaHoHqang</b> example, for instance, <b>SoH</b> is
not an indirect object: <b>SoH</b> benefits from the
action, but the action does not result in something actually
given to <b>SoH.</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Out of the three verbs I can think of that have been used
with the prefix trick -- <b>nob</b>, <b>'ang</b>, and <b>jatlh</b>
-- only the first involves actually giving someone something. In
the case of <b>tIqwIj Sa'angnIS</b> or <b>tlhIngan Hol qajatlh</b>,
<b>tlhIH</b> or <b>SoH</b> are benefiting from the action but
aren't really getting anything out of it physically. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I didn't say anything about <i>physically.</i> The target of the
prefix is someone who receives the outcome of the action. <b>Sa'ang:</b><i>
</i>you receive the outcome of my showing, you see something; <b>qajatlh:</b>
you receive the outcome of my speaking, you hear something. But
with <b>muqab</b>, I don't receive the outcome of its being bad.
Nothing actually happens to me.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtnibbuiyLf4id2r+c5qcsp3-kZ_FafDnny8Hj6sFKeeQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div>(Also, is the assumed distinction between meanings of <b>-vaD</b>
a carryover from the ways that suffix is translated into
English? Do Klingon grammarians make a distinction between the <b>jIHvaD</b>
in <b>jiHvaD taj Danobpu'</b> and in <b>jIHvaD qab tera'ngan
Soj 'Iq</b>?)</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think so. I think Okrand was looking for a way to express
"indirect object," and saw that <b>-vaD</b> often did that job,
because one sort of beneficiary is an indirect object. So he gives
it this role in TKD Addendum 6.8. "The indirect object may be
considered the beneficiary," not that the beneficiary may be
considered the indirect object.<br>
</p>
<p>And the prefix trick works with indirect objects, not
beneficiaries.</p>
<p>You can look at it this (inexact) way: Klingon has the distinct
semantic roles of "indirect object" and "benefactive," and both
are marked with the "beneficiary" suffix, <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------64AF90842128FCA3FF2341EB--
--===============6218345951970615827==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============6218345951970615827==--
