[111425] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 04:16:07 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 15:58:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOtWL9kaoBM0jLfxrfS7PAfqT-KWk+gxDtdZA8pEMXaRGg@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.
--===============0253272773584810179==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E52965DD5A7FDE95739270A2"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E52965DD5A7FDE95739270A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 3:12 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Something does happen to me, though - something bad. That's what
> *jIHvaD qab* ("For the purposes of me, it's bad", "It's bad for me")
> implies -- that whatever it is (e.g. too much Terran food) has or
> would have some negative outcome for me.
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.
> 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.
>
> 1) How do you know this for sure? We know TKD is not 100%
> linguistically precise.
I don't know for sure; I said I don't think so. Given the order in which
these meanings developed, benefactive first, indirect object second, and
given the language of TKD 6.8 ("the indirect object may be considered
the beneficiary," not "the beneficiary may be considered the indirect
object"), and given that all of canon seems to align with my
explanation, I feel good about my conclusion.
> 2) Looking up the linguistic definition of "indirect object", it means
> something like "something indirectly affected by the action of the
> verb", which suggests that beneficiaries are a subset of indirect
> objects, not the other way around.
TKD's definitions don't always match up with general linguistic
definitions, and linguistic definitions don't always agree with each
other, and I think that's the case here. I presented some terms and
defined them so we'd have a common terminology.
In linguistics, "beneficiary" is often synonymous with "indirect
object," but an indirect object is more than just something that is
indirectly affected by the verb. It is something that receives in some
way the direct object. In Klingon, the direct object may be left general
or indefinite, but this still applies.
TKD uses the word "beneficiary" for *-vaD,* but it then goes on to
describe it as /for, intended for./ It is the noun "for whom or for
which the activity occurs." An activity can occur "for" you without
being given to you. *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam*/This information is useful for
the mission:/ nobody is being given anything, whether physically or
consequentially; the information is useful, and that usefulness is for
my benefit. The being useful doesn't make me receive anything. (Maybe
being useful leads to my getting secrets, but that's another sentence.
In this one, the *-vaD* is only the /for, intended for/ meaning.) This
isn't what an indirect object is at all.
I called the above meaning "benefactive," and this is another general
linguistic term that may not necessarily match the Klingon exactly.
Different languages have different scopes to their benefactive elements,
if they have them at all.
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, though it was not a completely
arbitrary rule either: benefactives and indirect objects are related.
So that's the situation we have today. Benefactives, which tell you the
action occurs for you or is intended for you, and indirect objects,
which tell you that you receive the direct object that comes out of a
verb, both use *-vaD.* They use the same suffix because their meanings
are related, but they are not identical. Benefactives came first;
indirect objects were added on later. The prefix trick is only described
to us as working with indirect objects, not with all *-vaD* nouns, and
we've only ever seen it used with indirect objects. Trying to make it
work with benefactive *-vaD* makes us uncomfortable.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------E52965DD5A7FDE95739270A2
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 3:12 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtWL9kaoBM0jLfxrfS7PAfqT-KWk+gxDtdZA8pEMXaRGg@mail.gmail.com">On
Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<span class="gmail-"></span>
<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 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Something does happen to me, though - something bad. That's
what <b>jIHvaD qab</b> ("For the purposes of me, it's bad",
"It's bad for me") implies -- that whatever it is (e.g. too much
Terran food) has or would have some negative outcome for me.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>No. In <b>jIHvaD qab,</b> nothing has happened 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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtWL9kaoBM0jLfxrfS7PAfqT-KWk+gxDtdZA8pEMXaRGg@mail.gmail.com">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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.</p>
</div>
<div>1) How do you know this for sure? We know TKD is not 100%
linguistically precise.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't know for sure; I said I don't think so. Given the order
in which these meanings developed, benefactive first, indirect
object second, and given the language of TKD 6.8 ("the indirect
object may be considered the beneficiary," not "the beneficiary
may be considered the indirect object"), and given that all of
canon seems to align with my explanation, I feel good about my
conclusion.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtWL9kaoBM0jLfxrfS7PAfqT-KWk+gxDtdZA8pEMXaRGg@mail.gmail.com">
<div>2) Looking up the linguistic definition of "indirect object",
it means something like "<span class="gmail-st">something
indirectly affected by the action of the verb", which suggests
that beneficiaries are a subset of indirect objects, not the
other way around.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>TKD's definitions don't always match up with general linguistic
definitions, and linguistic definitions don't always agree with
each other, and I think that's the case here. I presented some
terms and defined them so we'd have a common terminology.</p>
<p>In linguistics, "beneficiary" is often synonymous with "indirect
object," but an indirect object is more than just something that
is indirectly affected by the verb. It is something that receives
in some way the direct object. In Klingon, the direct object may
be left general or indefinite, but this still applies.</p>
<p>TKD uses the word "beneficiary" for <b>-vaD,</b> but it then
goes on to describe it as <i>for, intended for.</i> It is the
noun "for whom or for which the activity occurs." An activity can
occur "for" you without being given to you. <b>Qu'vaD lI' De'vam</b><i>
This information is useful for the mission:</i> nobody is being
given anything, whether physically or consequentially; the
information is useful, and that usefulness is for my benefit. The
being useful doesn't make me receive anything. (Maybe being useful
leads to my getting secrets, but that's another sentence. In this
one, the <b>-vaD</b> is only the <i>for, intended for</i>
meaning.) This isn't what an indirect object is at all.<br>
</p>
<p>I called the above meaning "benefactive," and this is another
general linguistic term that may not necessarily match the Klingon
exactly. Different languages have different scopes to their
benefactive elements, if they have them at all.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an indirect
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>-vaD</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>intended
for.</i> This was not deducible prior to the second edition TKD
and the canon that led to it, though it was not a completely
arbitrary rule either: benefactives and indirect objects are
related.</p>
<p>So that's the situation we have today. Benefactives, which tell
you the action occurs for you or is intended for you, and indirect
objects, which tell you that you receive the direct object that
comes out of a verb, both use <b>-vaD.</b> They use the same
suffix because their meanings are related, but they are not
identical. Benefactives came first; indirect objects were added on
later. The prefix trick is only described to us as working with
indirect objects, not with all <b>-vaD</b> nouns, and we've only
ever seen it used with indirect objects. Trying to make it work
with benefactive <b>-vaD</b> makes us uncomfortable.<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>
--------------E52965DD5A7FDE95739270A2--
--===============0253272773584810179==
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
--===============0253272773584810179==--
