[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[SuStel]

On 10/5/2017 5:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang
>     *
>
>     *SoHvaD* is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now I
>     wish I hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because
>     you're totally misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence
>     is not about your beloved receiving a presentation involving
>     killing; it is only about your willingness to kill, and your
>     beloved is the one who will benefit from it.
>
> Is it the *-qang* suffix that's the problem, then?
> Does *yaSvaD taj nobqang qama' *not have an indirect object now, 
> because the giving is only potential and might not actually happen?
> And would *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' *now have an 
> indirect object, because the killing has happened in reality and my 
> beloved (the "you" being addressed) has received some sign of devotion 
> from that?
> In*bangwI',****SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang*, are the warriors not 
> really a direct object, because they only exist hypothetically and 
> therefore nothing is directly happening to them? Am I not a subject 
> because I haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the dividing 
> line between semantic and syntactic role here?

Just stop. You're not understanding my "happens to" test, and you're 
completely screwing it up. This has nothing to do with what I said. Just 
forget it.


>
>     You didn't give anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't
>     described as receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is
>     addressed in the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with
>     indirect objects or benefactives.
>
> Receiving things is not how Okrand describes the role of the indirect 
> object. That's a definition you introduced, not a universally-accepted 
> one. Okrand doesn't talk about what he means specifically by "indirect 
> object" at all, only that it can be considered a beneficiary of the 
> action, which does not imply that his definition is as specific and 
> narrow as the one you're using.

Okrand twice calls an object "the recipient of [the] action." /That is 
not what the object of a verb is./ An object is the thing that is acted 
upon by the subject, not that receives the action done by the subject.
//

In Object-Verb-Subject, we are told that the object is the recipient of 
the action of the verb done by the subject. Oh yeah? *yaSvaD taj nobpu' 
qama'.* Did the knife receive anything? *tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'.* Did my 
chronometer receive anything? No. Okrand's explanation of what an object 
is is just plain wrong.

Then he goes and talks about indirect objects. He doesn't define an 
indirect object, but he says it can be considered the beneficiary. 
That's not a definition; that's a categorization. Whatever an indirect 
object is, it fits into the category of beneficiary.

I'll tell you what an indirect object is (again). An indirect object is 
what receives the direct object. If Okrand means anything other than 
this when he says "indirect object," he has given absolutely no 
indication. But he DOES dedicate a section of the Addendum to it.
//


> *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* - "I admit that using the prefix trick 
> with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."
>
>     Why? If there's no difference between types of *-vaD,* what could
>     possibly be wrong with it? /What distinction between that and
>     known good examples are you making?/
>
> The difference is that stative verbs never have direct objects, 
> whereas the definition of the prefix trick mentions third-person 
> direct objects specifically, and the known examples of the prefix 
> trick include at least an implied direct object. This struck me as a 
> potentially significant difference. My concern has nothing to do 
> with*-vaD*.

And do you know why that feels wrong to you on intransitive verbs? It's 
because in English intransitive verbs do not take indirect objects. 
*Qu'vaD Hegh*/he dies for the mission./ Not an indirect object; a 
benefactive. Not a stative verb; an intransitive action verb.


>     The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix trick
>     for "indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for
>     benefactives, not for any noun with *-vaD.* "Indirect objects." I
>     see no reason to think he uses the term "indirect object" to refer
>     to any kind of *-vaD* noun.
>
> Every time he's talked about the role of *-vaD *nouns since TKDa, he's 
> talked about them as indirect objects,

No, every time he's talked about indirect objects since the Addendum, 
he's talked about words that get *-vaD* added to them.


> There are a lot of things he could have given more examples for, I 
> agree. But "indirect object" is a pretty basic concept of English syntax

It's not a pretty basic concept. You don't get it yourself.


> that is not obviously addressed in the first edition of TKD,

It is not addressed AT ALL in the first edition. AT ALL.


> and he may have wanted to talk about it specifically. Maybe someone 
> bugged him about it. I can't speak to what Okrand was thinking 
> 30-some-odd years ago, but I don't think any major conclusions should 
> be drawn based on what got included in the addendum and how it was 
> arranged.

Everything in the Addendum comes from /Star Trek/s V and VI and from 
/Star Trek: The Next Generation./ Okrand was not yet interacting much 
with fans when it was published. I think he'd given some words and 
phrases to /veS QonoS/ by then.

I'm not aware of any use of *-vaD* after Valkris's *Qu'vaD lI'* and 
prior to the publication of the second edition, so I have no idea what 
prompted Okrand to include it in the Addendum.


> 1) When you talk about "indirect objects" (for instance, when talking 
> about the prefix trick), are you using it to mean all nouns with the 
> *-vaD* suffix? Or are there uses of *-vaD* that you don't count as 
> indirect objects (and therefore can't be used with the prefix trick)? 
> If the latter is true, what is your definition for when a noun with 
> *-vaD* is or isn't an indirect object?

I've answered this over and over in this thread.


> 2) Can be the prefix trick be used in all situations with indirect 
> objects (however those turn out to be defined)? Or are there 
> exceptions? Are there certain verbs that can never take it? Is its use 
> limited to a small subset of verbs?

If by "indirect objects" you mean "nouns with *-vaD,*" which is not what 
I mean by it, then this is the question. I have given my opinion and my 
reasons, both regarding different types of *-vaD* nouns and different 
prefixes that are allowed to participate.


> 3) Can the prefix trick be used with stative verbs that have a *-vaD* 
> noun with them? For instance, is it acceptable to turn the phrase 
> *jIHvaD lI' De'vam* /"This information is useful for me"/ into *mulI' 
> De'vam*? If not, is it because the *-vaD* noun doesn't count as an 
> indirect object when used with stative verbs, or because the prefix 
> trick needs direct objects which stative verbs can't have, or because 
> of some other reason?

This is the same question as 2.


> (And to tie in a question from the other thread about subtitles:)
> 4) Is the prefix trick still strictly limited to 1st/2nd-person 
> indirect objects with 3rd-person direct objects, as it was first 
> described? If someone uses it with a different arrangement of persons 
> in a way that's not confusing, is this acceptable, or is this 
> considered "intentional ungrammaticality"?

If me talk like caveman when me hang out with me friends, do them accept 
me talking this way, knowing me do it on purpose?

But if you agree that that's how "it was first described" (which is what 
Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to think anything has 
changed. Lieven's /Star Trek Discovery/ transcript is not canon.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171005/b268f846/attachment-0016.htm>