[tlhIngan Hol] qepHom grammar questions

[SuStel]

On 10/4/2017 5:03 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto: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.

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. Similarly, if I say *tIqwIj vI'ang,* 
*tIqwIj//*is the direct object, which means the verb acts directly on my 
heart. Literally, I only let it be seen, but linguistically revealing my 
heart means I perform the action /reveal/ directly on the direct object, 
/my heart./


> 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*?

Don't take my statement too strongly. I don't mean to say there was no 
way anybody could have come up with *-vaD* for a recipient; I'm saying 
that what is described in pre-addendum TKD does not have much of 
anything to do with indirect objects or recipients of actions.

Yes, you could have taken "intended for" and decided "I give this knife, 
and the giving is intended for you," and gotten *-vaD* out of that. But 
it doesn't mean quite the same thing as an indirect object, which is "I 
give this knife, and you are the recipient." Benefactives are about the 
verb being for someone; indirect objects are about the direct object 
being for someone.

I wasn't studying Klingon out of the dictionary before the second 
edition was published, so I can't say what online discussions might have 
taken place.


> 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.

As I said, benefactive and indirect object are related. It's not an 
entirely new meaning; it's a related meaning. But it's definitely 
something the first edition of the dictionary didn't provide for. I 
don't think Okrand is telling you how to translate English turns of 
phrase into already-known Klingon; I think he's adding an additional 
semantic role of "indirect object" that didn't exist before, and could 
only be approximated with the original explanation of *-vaD.*


> (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.)

That's just an issue of techniques of translation, not the meaning of 
morphemes or semantics or syntax. My talk of *-vaD* has to do with 
purely Klingon grammar, without discussing translations into other 
languages.


> 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.

There certainly is inconsistency in his terminology, and not only with 
the *-vaD* issues. But he has only used the prefix trick for indirect 
objects and never for benefactives.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171004/8488a18e/attachment-0017.htm>