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

[SuStel]

On 2/15/2021 10:19 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> To be honest, when I read {yaSvaD taj vIqem}, I envisioned someone 
> walking with the officer on his beat, carrying the officer’s knife, 
> ready to hand it to him whenever he requested it. I would have used 
> {-Daq} if you really meant that you were some place other than near 
> the officer and you carried the knife to the location of the officer 
> in order to participate in the event of giving the knife to the 
> officer. More explicitly, I would have said {yaSvaD taj vInobmeH 
> yaSDaq taj vIqem.}

*yaSvaD taj vIqem* means both that you bring a knife for the benefit of 
an officer and that you bring a knife in order to give it to an officer 
(the only interpretation of /bring/indirect object officer/ I can think 
of). In isolation it doesn't mean only one of those things. All you need 
is some context to make it clear whether *-vaD *is acting as a 
beneficiary or the more specific subset of that, an indirect object. You 
don't need that whole sentence with the purpose clause to get this 
across: *yaSvaD taj vIqem* will mean that when you're talking about a 
situation in which you bring a knife to an officer to give it to him or her.

The English preposition /to/ can mean different things in different 
contexts. /I bring the knife to the officer/ uses /to/ to introduce a 
locative. /I give the knife to the officer/ uses /to/ to introduce an 
indirect object. So too does the Klingon suffix *-vaD* mean different 
things in different contexts. /To/ and *-vaD* just have different 
meanings at different times. They are not equivalent.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210215/8396aec5/attachment-0016.htm>