[85678] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: -vaD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Mon Jun 1 20:36:50 2009
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <4323072F-11D8-4AF2-B4DA-DFF07E9D622F@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:35:37 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
The question we have to ask was when Okrand chose to use the word
"beneficiary" in TKD, was he writing it for linguists or for laymen?
There is a lot in TKD that comes closer to layman's terms than
linguists.
Doq
On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:26 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> 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'
>
>
>
