[111420] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 6 04:11:11 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <67c3a300-63eb-f50c-b4ab-e2941f9341e9@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 17:03:45 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============7379824527553660031==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07f9409059f8055abef1ed"
--94eb2c07f9409059f8055abef1ed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> No. In *jIHvaD qab,* nothing has happened to you. The subject of *qab*
> has had a quality described, but it has not acted upon you in any way. Here
> *jIH* is a benefactive, not an indirect object.
>
Nothing has happened to you (plural) when I *Sa'ang* my heart either,
except possibly that I have caused photons of certain wavelengths to enter
your eyes.
I'll grant that "prefix trick with stative verbs" is the least likely to be
acceptable out of my three examples.
> Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an indirect object
> meaning of *-vaD* until the second edition and the Addendum is published
> with it. Here it tells us, not that since *-vaD* means "indirect object"
> that we should use it for indirect objects; it's prescribing for us a new
> rule: you can signal an indirect object by slapping a *-vaD* on it,
> because Klingons consider the recipient of an action someone whom the
> action is *intended for. *This was not deducible prior to the second
> edition TKD and the canon that led to it
>
I am skeptical that using *-vaD* for the recipient of an action was not
deducible prior to the addendum being published. Both of the examples in
TKDa can be interpreted even when translating *-vaD* as a beneficiary
marker. Was there actually some Usenet discussion in the intervening years
where* -vaD* as an indirect object marker was considered too controversial
to use? Or where the topic of indirect objects came up and nobody thought
of *-vaD*?
To me, that section reads more like a clarification on how existing Klingon
grammar is used to express a common bit of English syntax, described using
English grammar terms, rather than describing an entirely new use or
meaning of the suffix. (Similar to how Okrand described *tlhej* as being
used to translate the idea of "with", without implying some kind of
distinction between *tlhej* when it's used to translate "with" vs. when
it's not.) The varying ways in which Okrand has described using *-vaD* over
the years (as an "indirect object" or not) seem more like casual
inconsistency in terminology rather than hints at some deeper underlying
semantic distinction.
--94eb2c07f9409059f8055abef1ed
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:=
sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>=
wrote:<span class=3D""></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"=
#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p>No. In <b>jIHvaD qab,</b> nothing has happe=
ned to you. The
subject of <b>qab</b> has had a quality described, but it has not
acted upon you in any way. Here <b>jIH</b> is a benefactive, not
an indirect object.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Nothing has happen=
ed to you (plural) when I <b>Sa'ang</b> my heart either, except possibl=
y that I have caused photons of certain wavelengths to enter your eyes.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>I'll grant that "prefix trick with stative v=
erbs" is the least likely to be acceptable out of my three examples.<b=
r></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""></span><span clas=
s=3D"">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"=
#FFFFFF"><p>Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an indir=
ect
object meaning of <b>-vaD</b> until the second edition and the
Addendum is published with it. Here it tells us, not that since <b>-v=
aD</b>
means "indirect object" that we should use it for indirect
objects; it's prescribing for us a new rule: you can signal an
indirect object by slapping a <b>-vaD</b> on it, because Klingons
consider the recipient of an action someone whom the action is <i>int=
ended
for. </i>This was not deducible prior to the second edition TKD
and the canon that led to it</p></div></blockquote><div text=3D"#0000=
00" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">I am skeptical that using <b>-vaD</b> for the recip=
ient of an action was not deducible prior to the addendum being published. =
Both of the examples in TKDa can be interpreted even when translating <b>-v=
aD</b> as a beneficiary marker. Was there actually some Usenet discussion i=
n the intervening years where<b> -vaD</b> as an indirect object marker was =
considered too controversial to use? Or where the topic of indirect objects=
came up and nobody thought of <b>-vaD</b>? <br></div><div text=3D"#000000"=
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><br></div><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">To=
me, that section reads more like a clarification on how existing Klingon g=
rammar is used to express a common bit of English syntax, described using E=
nglish grammar terms, rather than describing an entirely new use or meaning=
of the suffix. (Similar to how Okrand described <b>tlhej</b> as being used=
to translate the idea of "with", without implying some kind of d=
istinction between <b>tlhej</b> when it's used to translate "with&=
quot; vs. when it's not.) The varying ways in which Okrand has describe=
d using <b>-vaD</b> over the years (as an "indirect object" or no=
t) seem more like casual inconsistency in terminology rather than hints at =
some deeper underlying semantic distinction.<br></div><br><div text=3D"#000=
000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><br></div></div></div></div>
--94eb2c07f9409059f8055abef1ed--
--===============7379824527553660031==
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
--===============7379824527553660031==--
