[tlhIngan Hol] is the choice between -Daq and -vaD influenced by the way something is given?

[mayqel qunen'oS]

jIH:
> yaSvaD taj vIqem
> I give the knife to the officer by bringing it to him
SuStel:
> You might give the knife to the officer, but you don't say so in this sentence.
> This sentence just says you bring the knife to the officer. Whether the officer
> picks it up after you bring it is another sentence.

Oh yes, you're right; I wrote the translation this way to
differentiate between the "I bring the knife to the officer" meaning
of the {yaSDaq taj vIqem}, which would mean "I bring the knife to the
officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife
is brought).

jIH:
> yaSvaD taj vIngeH
> I give the knife to the officer by sending it to him
> So when giving something to someone we use the
> {-vaD} regardless whether we bring it to him, or send it to him.
SuStel:
> No. We use -vaD when we want to specify the recipient or beneficiary
> of the verb. When you're specifying a recipient, this role is called the indirect object.

Indeed, I made again the mistake of choosing this translation in order
to differentiate between the "I send the knife to the officer" meaning
of the {yaSDaq taj vIngeH} which would mean "I send the knife to the
officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife
is sent).

This has always been a source of confusion for me; the fact that in
english we use the word "to" to translate both the {-Daq} and the
{-vaD}.

~ Dana'an
taH pagh taHbe'