[111466] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 6 08:11:07 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <5fffc42c-4e73-d9b9-2236-b1213a83260e@trimboli.name>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:12:06 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============8487779187680253804==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1fc13843a283055abd62bb"
--94eb2c1fc13843a283055abd62bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, SuStel <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. Similar arguments could apply to my other
examples: I receive the outcome of a building *qawmoH* by being reminded of
something. My beloved receives the outcome of* vIHoHqang* by receiving the
proof of my *parmaq*. (IMO, *qawmoH* is probably closest to the examples of
*Sa'ang* and *qajatlh*, since in all three cases the outcome is some
subjective experience on the part of the 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.
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.
In any case, this disagreement demonstrates why I wanted to ask about the
prefix trick in the first place.
--94eb2c1fc13843a283055abd62bb
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 1:32 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"gmail-"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#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'a=
ng:</b><i>
</i>you receive the outcome of my showing, you see something; <b>qaja=
tlh:</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>Someth=
ing does happen to me, though - something bad. That's what <b>jIHvaD qa=
b</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) h=
as or would have some negative outcome for me. Similar arguments could appl=
y to my other examples: I receive the outcome of a building <b>qawmoH</b> b=
y being reminded of something. My beloved receives the outcome of<b> vIHoHq=
ang</b> by receiving the proof of my <b>parmaq</b>. (IMO, <b>qawmoH</b> is =
probably closest to the examples of <b>Sa'ang</b> and <b>qajatlh</b>, s=
ince in all three cases the outcome is some subjective experience on the pa=
rt of the object.)<br></div><div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p>
</p><span class=3D"gmail-">
</span><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></blockquote><div>1) How do =
you know this for sure? We know TKD is not 100% linguistically precise.<br>=
</div><div>2) Looking up the linguistic definition of "indirect object=
", it means something like "<span class=3D"gmail-st">something in=
directly affected by the action of the verb", which suggests that bene=
ficiaries are a subset of indirect objects, not the other way around.</span=
></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-st"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"g=
mail-st">In any case, this disagreement demonstrates why I wanted to ask ab=
out the prefix trick in the first place.</span><span class=3D"gmail-st"></s=
pan><span class=3D"gmail-st"></span></div><div>=C2=A0</div></div><br></div>=
</div>
--94eb2c1fc13843a283055abd62bb--
--===============8487779187680253804==
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
--===============8487779187680253804==--
