<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 12:33 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtnibbuiyLf4id2r+c5qcsp3-kZ_FafDnny8Hj6sFKeeQ@mail.gmail.com">On
Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote: <br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I don't think you can use it for any application of <b>-vaD,</b>
only for when <b>-vaD</b> indicates an indirect object. In
your <b>qaHoHqang</b> example, for instance, <b>SoH</b> is
not an indirect object: <b>SoH</b> benefits from the
action, but the action does not result in something actually
given to <b>SoH.</b></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Out of the three verbs I can think of that have been used
with the prefix trick -- <b>nob</b>, <b>'ang</b>, and <b>jatlh</b>
-- only the first involves actually giving someone something. In
the case of <b>tIqwIj Sa'angnIS</b> or <b>tlhIngan Hol qajatlh</b>,
<b>tlhIH</b> or <b>SoH</b> are benefiting from the action but
aren't really getting anything out of it physically. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I didn't say anything about <i>physically.</i> The target of the
prefix is someone who receives the outcome of the action. <b>Sa'ang:</b><i>
</i>you receive the outcome of my showing, you see something; <b>qajatlh:</b>
you receive the outcome of my speaking, you hear something. But
with <b>muqab</b>, I don't receive the outcome of its being bad.
Nothing actually happens to me.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOtnibbuiyLf4id2r+c5qcsp3-kZ_FafDnny8Hj6sFKeeQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div>(Also, is the assumed distinction between meanings of <b>-vaD</b>
a carryover from the ways that suffix is translated into
English? Do Klingon grammarians make a distinction between the <b>jIHvaD</b>
in <b>jiHvaD taj Danobpu'</b> and in <b>jIHvaD qab tera'ngan
Soj 'Iq</b>?)</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think so. I think Okrand was looking for a way to express
"indirect object," and saw that <b>-vaD</b> often did that job,
because one sort of beneficiary is an indirect object. So he gives
it this role in TKD Addendum 6.8. "The indirect object may be
considered the beneficiary," not that the beneficiary may be
considered the indirect object.<br>
</p>
<p>And the prefix trick works with indirect objects, not
beneficiaries.</p>
<p>You can look at it this (inexact) way: Klingon has the distinct
semantic roles of "indirect object" and "benefactive," and both
are marked with the "beneficiary" suffix, <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>