[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[SuStel]

On 10/5/2017 12:43 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     Yes it has: you have seen. You received a visual image or a
>     presentation. Linguistically, this is receiving something, which
>     is something happening to you.
>
> "Something happening to you" is a very broad definition of a recipient 
> or indirect object.

I didn't give that as a definition; I offered it as a test. You've got a 
*-vaD* noun, and you're trying to figure out whether it has an indirect 
object meaning or a benefactive meaning. Is the noun affected by action 
of the verb, or does the verb merely describe its disposition toward the 
noun? That's the test; it's not a definition.


> I think you might be trying too hard to define a distinction you 
> haven't shown to exist. English grammar doesn't make these 
> fine-grained distinctions between what is and isn't an indirect 
> object. Every English class I've had would argue that "you" in "I do 
> something for you" and "Too much food is bad for you" are both 
> indirect objects. There may be a distinction in higher-level 
> linguistics that says otherwise, but that's not the level of 
> technicality that Okrand uses to talk about Klingon in general or 
> about indirect objects in specific. I don't see why his use of the 
> English term "indirect object" when talking about the prefix trick 
> must necessarily exclude benefactives as you've defined them.

Okrand fails to mention lots of technical linguistics when presenting 
his prescriptive rules; that doesn't mean they don't exist. He fails to 
mention the word /genitive/ completely, but although the noun-noun 
construction is described only as possessive, it's actually genitive, 
and there is a difference. This difference becomes important for 
constructions like *jIH 'em*/area in front of me,/ which previously we 
all thought would be expressed as *'emwIj* because we figured it was 
just a possessive idea, but it turns out that, one regional dialect 
notwithstanding, it's not. These linguistic technicalities matter, 
whether Okrand describes them or not, because he uses them anyway.

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;* I've been very explicit all along that I don't /know/ 
that this is how it works. But these differences are known in 
linguistics, the dictionary was amended in a way that puts a spotlight 
on this distinction, and we haven't yet seen anything that contradicts 
what I'm saying.


> I found an example from KGT where Okrand uses the term "indirect 
> object" in a situation where the verb is for someone, not the direct 
> object:
>
>     The verb *QIj* ("explain") is a standard term somewhat close to
>     this in meaning, though the object of *QIj* is that which is
>     explained, while the person to whom the explanation is given is
>     the indirect object: *yaSvaD nab QIj* ("He/she explains the plan
>     to the officer"; *yaSvaD*, "for the officer"; *nab*, "plan").
>     /(KGT, p. 149)/
>
> The plan isn't necessarily for the officer, but the explaining is. 
> (Also, the gloss of *yaSvaD* is "/for/ the officer", which suggests 
> that "indirect object" can be used to refer to the benefactive meaning 
> originally described for *-vaD*.)

That describes an indirect object, not a benefactive as I've been using 
the term. You are being given the plan. When you hear something, or see 
something, or learn something, it is linguistically conceived of as an 
actual thing that you are given. It's kind of like how in English TIME = 
SPACE. Whenever you talk about time, you talk about it in spatial terms. 
"At" 12:00. Time "passes." Summer is "here." The future is yet to 
"come." Time isn't space, but English treats it as if it were. 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.

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. The meanings 
are related, which is why the dictionary says that "the indirect object 
may be considered the beneficiary," but they're not identical.

*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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171005/0a83b1dc/attachment-0017.htm>