[85560] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bach?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Thu May 28 01:22:18 2009
In-Reply-To: <3ED44673-FD04-4C74-823B-E5DAA6237A2C@alcaco.net>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 00:20:32 -0500
From: "qa'vaj" <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On May 27, 2009, at 9:01 PM, qa'vaj wrote:
>
> > {-vaD} also marks the indirect object.
>
> I opine differently. What I recall TKD's addendum saying is that the
> recipient of a gift may be considered the indirect object. I do not
> consider someone being shot to be the same sort of thing. In my
> mind, the target is a location, not a beneficiary.
>
>
FWIW
6.8. Indirect objects
While the object of the verb is the recipient of the action, the
indirect object may be considered the beneficiary. In a
Klingon sentence, the indirect object precedes the object
and is suffixed with the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD} <for, intended
for.> The suffix may be attached to either a noun or a
pronoun.
{yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} <The prisoner gave the officer>
<the knife> ({yaS} <officer,> {taj}
<knife,> {nobpu'} <gave,> {qama'}
<prisoner>)
{chaHvaD Soj qem yaS} <The officer brings them food>
({chaH} <they,> {Soj} <food,> {qem}
<bring,> {yaS} <officer>)
I don't disagree that Klingon usage may be to refer to the target object of
{bach} by it's location - that is certainly supported by the canon Voragh
posted. But I don't see a grammatical argument (nor a semantic one) that
dismisses {-vaD}, in the sense of being obviously contradictory to the
descriptions in TKD.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
