[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[nIqolay Q]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, SuStel <sustel at 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?

> 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
<http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt>

> 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*. 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. 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.

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". 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." It's like if he
talked about using *tlhej* for "with" by saying "the object of 'with' can
be considered the accompanier".

> *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.)

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 use the pronomial
prefixes to distinguish between "motion to an area" and "doing something at
an area". But Klingon doesn't grammatically distinguish between "on the
table" and "in the table". If I have a table with a drawer in it, *raSDaq
jInejpu' **"I have looked (for something) in/on the table"* is potentially
ambiguous in a way that can be linguistically relevant (adessive vs.
inessive) but not grammatically relevant. The same suffixes and prefixes
are used with both meanings. Only additional words (or familiarity with my
tables) can clear up the ambiguity.

Likewise, with *-vaD*, there is a linguistic distinction that can be made
between "the officer benefits in a sort of vague way from the prisoner
giving the knife" and "the officer actually receives a knife from the
prisoner giving it". But I don't think we can say yet that this is a
grammatical distinction in Klingon. 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171005/8b9d07f5/attachment-0002.htm>