[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[nIqolay Q]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> No. In *jIHvaD qab,* nothing has happened to you. The subject of *qab*
> has had a quality described, but it has not acted upon you in any way. Here
> *jIH* is a benefactive, not an indirect object.
>
Nothing has happened to you (plural) when I *Sa'ang* my heart either,
except possibly that I have caused photons of certain wavelengths to enter
your eyes.

I'll grant that "prefix trick with stative verbs" is the least likely to be
acceptable out of my three examples.

> Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an indirect object
> meaning of *-vaD* until the second edition and the Addendum is published
> with it. Here it tells us, not that since *-vaD* means "indirect object"
> that we should use it for indirect objects; it's prescribing for us a new
> rule: you can signal an indirect object by slapping a *-vaD* on it,
> because Klingons consider the recipient of an action someone whom the
> action is *intended for. *This was not deducible prior to the second
> edition TKD and the canon that led to it
>
I am skeptical that using *-vaD* for the recipient of an action was not
deducible prior to the addendum being published. Both of the examples in
TKDa can be interpreted even when translating *-vaD* as a beneficiary
marker. Was there actually some Usenet discussion in the intervening years
where* -vaD* as an indirect object marker was considered too controversial
to use? Or where the topic of indirect objects came up and nobody thought
of *-vaD*?

To me, that section reads more like a clarification on how existing Klingon
grammar is used to express a common bit of English syntax, described using
English grammar terms, rather than describing an entirely new use or
meaning of the suffix. (Similar to how Okrand described *tlhej* as being
used to translate the idea of "with", without implying some kind of
distinction between *tlhej* when it's used to translate "with" vs. when
it's not.) The varying ways in which Okrand has described using *-vaD* over
the years (as an "indirect object" or not) seem more like casual
inconsistency in terminology rather than hints at some deeper underlying
semantic distinction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171004/466e5386/attachment-0016.htm>