[111457] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 06:56:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:51:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@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.
--===============2012670967962608554==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------45ECCCD3562D3E7F48A8EC52"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------45ECCCD3562D3E7F48A8EC52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
TL;DR: *-vaD* is the dative of Klingon.
On 10/5/2017 12:45 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of asking him for further
> clarification of *-vaD* and the prefix trick; I'm not saying
> there's nothing to learn here. I don't /know/ that you can't say
> *muqab* instead of *jIHvaD qab;*
>
> Are you arguing just against the use of the prefix trick with stative
> verbs and the idea that *-vaD* counts as an indirect object with such
> verbs? Or do you disagree that any of my three examples have indirect
> objects that can be used with the prefix trick, including the idea of
> "I do something for you" and that thing you do when using *-moH* on
> transitive verbs?
*bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang
*
*SoHvaD* is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now I wish I
hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because you're totally
misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence is not about your
beloved receiving a presentation involving killing; it is only about
your willingness to kill, and your beloved is the one who will benefit
from it. You didn't give anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't
described as receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is
addressed in the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with
indirect objects or benefactives.
*jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh*
I have no idea whether *-vaD* + *-moH* has anything to do with indirect
objects or benefactives or not. It seems to be playing the role of "I
don't know where else to put this noun, so I'll stick a *-vaD* on it."
Okrand has never explained the workings of this grammar, and it's
controversial and confusing because it's difficult to make sense of it.
*jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* - "I admit that using the prefix trick
with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."
Why? If there's no difference between types of *-vaD,* what could
possibly be wrong with it? /What distinction between that and known good
examples are you making?/
**
> Well, English treats targets of speeches or visions as if they had
> been handed a package. Whether Klingon does the same is a fair
> question, which this example might be confirmation of.
>
> The article on the prefix trick already describes the target of
> speeches as an indirect object (which, in your terminology, is
> analogous to being handed a package):
>
> /The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is the
> hearer/listener. Thus:
> [...]
> qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the prisoners"
> (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ "speech, lecture, address,"
> Dajatlh "you speak it")/
>
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt
Exactly, and it does not describe the target as a beneficiary or a
benefactive or a dative noun or anything else—it describes it as an
indirect object. I believe that when Okrand says "indirect object" here,
he actually means indirect object, not "thing related to indirect objects."
> I think you're getting confused by the English translations. It
> doesn't matter whether something is translated with /to/ or /for;/
> it's the concept that counts. Is there an inherent difference in
> concept between the *-vaD* in *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam* and *yaSvaD taj
> nobpu' qama'*? I think there is, and the concept exists in
> linguistic studies, and Okrand went out of his way to introduce
> the difference in the addendum.
>
> They are different concepts (the nature of the benefit is more
> abstract and potential in the case of *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam*, for
> instance), but I don't think the concepts are so different that they
> can't be included under the same usage of *-vaD*.
They ARE both included in *-vaD.* I've been saying all along that the
concepts are different but related. Are you listening? That's why they
both use the same suffix. Syntactically, they are indistinguishable:
noun + *-vaD,* end of story. Semantically, they are different, but related.
> The mission benefits (or will benefit) in some way from the usefulness
> of this information, and the officer benefits in some way from the
> prisoner giving a knife.
Yes. And this is the sense in which "the indirect object may be
considered the beneficiary." The officer benefits IN SOME WAY. As a
benefactive, that way is not specified. As an indirect object, it is:
the officer is given the knife. Indirect objects are a sub-class of the
beneficiary meaning of *-vaD.*
> Context, like the use of the verb *nob*, suggests that in the latter
> case the likely benefit is that the officer physically receives a knife.
Context lets you distinguish between the benefactive interpretation and
the indirect object interpretation.
> When Okrand said "the indirect object can be considered the
> beneficiary", I don't think his phrasing was intended to highlight a
> linguistic distinction. Rather, I think he was trying to explain the
> idea to an audience with a casual knowledge of grammar by highlighting
> an alternate way to think about the term "indirect object".
This wasn't a "let's think about this in a different way" part of the
dictionary. The Addendum is all about new stuff that got added or
clarified since the first edition. Added: *-vaD* can not only do
sentences like *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam,* but it can also do related, but
still different, sentences like *yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'.* We already
know where *-vaD* nouns go, but section 6.8 tells us that /indirect
objects/ go before the direct object and get *-vaD* put on them. We are
specifically being told where to put indirect objects, even though we
already know where to put beneficiaries.
Prior to the second edition, not counting the on-screen Klingon that led
to it, there had never been a canonical sentence with an actual indirect
object. It got added.
> In other words, I think it was more like "So, you've heard of indirect
> objects, but are wondering how to express that idea in Klingon? If you
> think about it, indirect objects are benefiting from the verb. So you
> can use the suffix I described earlier for marking a beneficiary to
> express the same basic idea."
Yes, it is exactly this, but he's not saying "And you could have figured
that out too if you'd thought about it"; he's saying "And this is a new
bit of information that wasn't in the first edition of the dictionary
and didn't necessarily follow from it." It's there because the first
edition described only benefactives, and he wanted to add indirect objects.
> It's like if he talked about using *tlhej* for "with" by saying "the
> object of 'with' can be considered the accompanier".
You keep talking about *tlhej,* but the addition of indirect objects is
not a case where all you had to do was think about a good way to say
what you wanted to say. It was new information. The first edition did
not describe indirect objects. It described benefactives, calling them
beneficiaries, and the second edition said that the roles of
benefactives and indirect objects are related and use the same suffix
because of that relation.
> *yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'* can theoretically mean either (a) the
> prisoner handed the officer a knife, or (b) the prisoner handed
> /someone else/ a knife for the officer's sake. These are different
> concepts. This is the difference I am pointing to. You're most
> likely to interpret it as (a) an indirect object, but given the
> right context you could interpret it as (b) a benefactive.
>
> That's true that it's potentially ambiguous, but again, I don't think
> there's a reason to necessarily assume that those different usages
> interact with grammar rules in a different way. (Specifically, the
> grammar rules describing when one can perform the prefix trick.)
The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix trick for
"indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for benefactives, not for
any noun with *-vaD.* "Indirect objects." I see no reason to think he
uses the term "indirect object" to refer to any kind of *-vaD* noun.
That's not to say that it's impossible for the prefix trick to work with
benefactives. It's to say that Okrand didn't say it did.
> For instance, TKD says that *-Daq* can often be translated using "to,
> in, at, on". These are linguistically different concepts, and there
> are languages like Finnish that distinguish between those various
> meanings, with various locative cases like the adessive ("on") and
> inessive ("in") and illative ("into") and all the rest.
And Klingon does NOT distinguish between those meanings. There is no
grammatical test you can perform in Klingon to distinguish the /to, in,
at,/ or /on/ meanings from a *-Daq.* But Okrand DOES distinguish between
indirect objects and benefactives ("beneficiaries") in his presentation
in TKD, and IF it turns out you can't use the prefix trick with certain
sentences, that's a good test to show that there ARE ways to distinguish
the various sorts of *-vaD.*
> And Klingon does use the pronomial prefixes to distinguish between
> "motion to an area" and "doing something at an area".
No, it doesn't. It distinguishes those by the nature of the verb. The
object of *ghoS* is a location. This is built into the verb. Using a
*-Daq* with *ghoS* gives a meaning depending entirely on whether the
noun is the direct object or not. The *-Daq* is completely optional on
such an object. *qachDaq ghoS*. If *qachDaq* is the direct object, the
destination is the *qach*. If *qachDaq* is not the direct object, the
entire action of *ghoS* takes place at the location *qach.* The
"to-ness" or "at-ness" has nothing to do with whether there is a *-Daq*
on the *qach* or not. Verb prefixes sometimes help us to distinguish
whether a noun is an object or not, but this is not essential, and the
meaning does not come from the prefix.
> Okrand doesn't often talk about or use the prefix trick, which is the
> one known element of Klingon grammar where the distinction might
> matter. And I think his use of the term "indirect object" mostly just
> represents a change in how he describes the *-vaD* suffix, rather than
> making a distinction from the original description as a beneficiary
> marker.
But why? Why would he add to the Addendum a whole section unto itself
called "Indirect Objects" if these were just a new name for the familiar
*-vaD*? There are sooo many areas that are left vague in TKD, and this
is the only one he thought he'd just give a couple of examples, to be
helpful? Every single other section of the Addendum adds something new,
something previously unknown or not explained correctly. In this one
section he's going to elaborate on something he'd already explained, but
maybe you didn't notice all the possibilities because he didn't use a
particular phrase? Really?
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------45ECCCD3562D3E7F48A8EC52
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>TL;DR: <b>-vaD</b> is the dative of Klingon.<br>
</p>
<br>
On 10/5/2017 12:45 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM,
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>And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of asking him
for further clarification of <b>-vaD</b> and the
prefix trick; I'm not saying there's nothing to learn
here. I don't <i>know</i> that you can't say <b>muqab</b>
instead of <b>jIHvaD qab;</b><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Are you arguing just against the use
of the prefix trick with stative verbs and the idea that <b>-vaD</b>
counts as an indirect object with such verbs? Or do you
disagree that any of my three examples have indirect
objects that can be used with the prefix trick, including
the idea of "I do something for you" and that thing you do
when using <b>-moH</b> on transitive verbs?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang<br>
</b></p>
<p><b>SoHvaD</b> is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now
I wish I hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because
you're totally misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence
is not about your beloved receiving a presentation involving
killing; it is only about your willingness to kill, and your
beloved is the one who will benefit from it. You didn't give
anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't described as
receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is addressed in
the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with indirect
objects or benefactives.<br>
</p>
<p><b style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq
qawmoH qachvetlh</b></p>
<p><span style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">I have no idea
whether <b>-vaD</b> + <b>-moH</b> has anything to do with
indirect objects or benefactives or not. It seems to be playing
the role of "I don't know where else to put this noun, so I'll
stick a <b>-vaD</b> on it." Okrand has never explained the
workings of this grammar, and it's controversial and confusing
because it's difficult to make sense of it.</span></p>
<p><b>jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq</b> - "I admit that using the
prefix trick with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."</p>
<p>Why? If there's no difference between types of <b>-vaD,</b> what
could possibly be wrong with it? <i>What distinction between that
and known good examples are you making?</i><br>
<span style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"></span><b
style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"></b></p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-"></span></div>
<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>Well, English treats targets of speeches or visions
as if they had been handed a package. Whether Klingon
does the same is a fair question, which this example
might be confirmation of.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The article on the prefix trick already describes the
target of speeches as an indirect object (which, in your
terminology, is analogous to being handed a package): <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><i>The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is
the hearer/listener. Thus:<br>
[...]<br>
qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the
prisoners" (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ
"speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it")</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div><a
href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Exactly, and it does not describe the target as a beneficiary or
a benefactive or a dative noun or anything else—it describes it as
an indirect object. I believe that when Okrand says "indirect
object" here, he actually means indirect object, not "thing
related to indirect objects."<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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 think you're getting confused by the English
translations. It doesn't matter whether something is
translated with <i>to</i> or <i>for;</i> it's the
concept that counts. Is there an inherent difference
in concept between the <b>-vaD</b> in <b>Qu'vaD lI'
De'vam</b> and <b>yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'</b>? I
think there is, and the concept exists in linguistic
studies, and Okrand went out of his way to introduce
the difference in the addendum. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>They are different concepts (the nature of the benefit
is more abstract and potential in the case of <b>Qu'vaD
lI' De'vam</b>, for instance), but I don't think the
concepts are so different that they can't be included
under the same usage of <b>-vaD</b>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>They ARE both included in <b>-vaD.</b> I've been saying all
along that the concepts are different but related. Are you
listening? That's why they both use the same suffix.
Syntactically, they are indistinguishable: noun + <b>-vaD,</b>
end of story. Semantically, they are different, but related.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> The mission benefits (or will benefit) in some way
from the usefulness of this information, and the officer
benefits in some way from the prisoner giving a knife.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes. And this is the sense in which "the indirect object may be
considered the beneficiary." The officer benefits IN SOME WAY. As
a benefactive, that way is not specified. As an indirect object,
it is: the officer is given the knife. Indirect objects are a
sub-class of the beneficiary meaning of <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> Context, like the use of the verb <b>nob</b>,
suggests that in the latter case the likely benefit is
that the officer physically receives a knife.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Context lets you distinguish between the benefactive
interpretation and the indirect object interpretation.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>When Okrand said "the indirect object can be considered
the beneficiary", I don't think his phrasing was intended
to highlight a linguistic distinction. Rather, I think he
was trying to explain the idea to an audience with a
casual knowledge of grammar by highlighting an alternate
way to think about the term "indirect object".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>This wasn't a "let's think about this in a different way" part of
the dictionary. The Addendum is all about new stuff that got added
or clarified since the first edition. Added: <b>-vaD</b> can not
only do sentences like <b>Qu'vaD lI' De'vam,</b> but it can also
do related, but still different, sentences like <b>yaSvaD taj
nobpu' qama'.</b> We already know where <b>-vaD</b> nouns go,
but section 6.8 tells us that <i>indirect objects</i> go before
the direct object and get <b>-vaD</b> put on them. We are
specifically being told where to put indirect objects, even though
we already know where to put beneficiaries.</p>
<p>Prior to the second edition, not counting the on-screen Klingon
that led to it, there had never been a canonical sentence with an
actual indirect object. It got added.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> In other words, I think it was more like "So, you've
heard of indirect objects, but are wondering how to
express that idea in Klingon? If you think about it,
indirect objects are benefiting from the verb. So you can
use the suffix I described earlier for marking a
beneficiary to express the same basic idea."</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes, it is exactly this, but he's not saying "And you could have
figured that out too if you'd thought about it"; he's saying "And
this is a new bit of information that wasn't in the first edition
of the dictionary and didn't necessarily follow from it." It's
there because the first edition described only benefactives, and
he wanted to add indirect objects.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> It's like if he talked about using <b>tlhej</b> for
"with" by saying "the object of 'with' can be considered
the accompanier".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You keep talking about <b>tlhej,</b> but the addition of indirect
objects is not a case where all you had to do was think about a good
way to say what you wanted to say. It was new information. The first
edition did not describe indirect objects. It described
benefactives, calling them beneficiaries, and the second edition
said that the roles of benefactives and indirect objects are related
and use the same suffix because of that relation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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><b>yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'</b> can theoretically mean
either (a) the prisoner handed the officer a knife, or
(b) the prisoner handed <i>someone else</i> a knife
for the officer's sake. These are different concepts.
This is the difference I am pointing to. You're most
likely to interpret it as (a) an indirect object, but
given the right context you could interpret it as (b)
a benefactive.<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>That's true that it's potentially ambiguous, but again,
I don't think there's a reason to necessarily assume that
those different usages interact with grammar rules in a
different way. (Specifically, the grammar rules describing
when one can perform the prefix trick.) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix
trick for "indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for
benefactives, not for any noun with <b>-vaD.</b> "Indirect
objects." I see no reason to think he uses the term "indirect
object" to refer to any kind of <b>-vaD</b> noun.</p>
<p>That's not to say that it's impossible for the prefix trick to
work with benefactives. It's to say that Okrand didn't say it did.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>For instance, TKD says that <b>-Daq</b> can often be
translated using "to, in, at, on". These are
linguistically different concepts, and there are languages
like Finnish that distinguish between those various
meanings, with various locative cases like the adessive
("on") and inessive ("in") and illative ("into") and all
the rest.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>And Klingon does NOT distinguish between those meanings. There is
no grammatical test you can perform in Klingon to distinguish the
<i>to, in, at,</i> or <i>on</i> meanings from a <b>-Daq.</b> But
Okrand DOES distinguish between indirect objects and benefactives
("beneficiaries") in his presentation in TKD, and IF it turns out
you can't use the prefix trick with certain sentences, that's a
good test to show that there ARE ways to distinguish the various
sorts of <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> And Klingon does use the pronomial prefixes to
distinguish between "motion to an area" and "doing
something at an area".</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>No, it doesn't. It distinguishes those by the nature of the verb.
The object of <b>ghoS</b> is a location. This is built into the
verb. Using a <b>-Daq</b> with <b>ghoS</b> gives a meaning
depending entirely on whether the noun is the direct object or
not. The <b>-Daq</b> is completely optional on such an object. <b>qachDaq
ghoS</b>. If <b>qachDaq</b> is the direct object, the
destination is the <b>qach</b>. If <b>qachDaq</b> is not the
direct object, the entire action of <b>ghoS</b> takes place at
the location <b>qach.</b> The "to-ness" or "at-ness" has nothing
to do with whether there is a <b>-Daq</b> on the <b>qach</b> or
not. Verb prefixes sometimes help us to distinguish whether a noun
is an object or not, but this is not essential, and the meaning
does not come from the prefix.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvS1kSjYsbE5=zZbEzqxCbotY0f5dz31SgyXjxKknKb0g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> Okrand doesn't often talk about or use the prefix
trick, which is the one known element of Klingon grammar
where the distinction might matter. And I think his use of
the term "indirect object" mostly just represents a change
in how he describes the <b>-vaD</b> suffix, rather than
making a distinction from the original description as a
beneficiary marker.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But why? Why would he add to the Addendum a whole section unto
itself called "Indirect Objects" if these were just a new name for
the familiar <b>-vaD</b>? There are sooo many areas that are left
vague in TKD, and this is the only one he thought he'd just give a
couple of examples, to be helpful? Every single other section of
the Addendum adds something new, something previously unknown or
not explained correctly. In this one section he's going to
elaborate on something he'd already explained, but maybe you
didn't notice all the possibilities because he didn't use a
particular phrase? Really?</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>
--------------45ECCCD3562D3E7F48A8EC52--
--===============2012670967962608554==
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
--===============2012670967962608554==--
