[85676] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: -vaD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Mon Jun 1 20:28:41 2009
In-Reply-To: <0BC9E85B-F682-4B24-9687-18A9B6BC5E29@embarqmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:26:46 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jun 1, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Doq wrote:
> I can't ignore Okrand's use of the word "beneficiary".
You don't need to ignore it, but perhaps you should modify your
understanding of it as a colloquial term that must involve the
betterment of what it applies to.
As a grammatical term, "beneficiary" merely indicates a recipient
(usually of an object or of information). The usual grammatical term
for the idea is "indirect object". In case-marking languages, it
gets the dative case. In English, it usually is preceded by the
preposition "to" or "for", or can stand alone if it comes before the
direct object. In Klingon, it gets the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD}.
A Klingon sentence's "beneficiary" doesn't obviously have to end up
improved by the sentence. {qama'vaD QIghpej lo' 'avwI') seems
grammatically fine to me.
-- ghunchu'wI'
