<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 5:03 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsu+mn60h0nyLpkpbN-m75YeQWTZ-+iksEpCrQ8QYNkMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:<span class=""></span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>No. In <b>jIHvaD qab,</b> nothing has happened to you.
The subject of <b>qab</b> has had a quality described,
but it has not acted upon you in any way. Here <b>jIH</b>
is a benefactive, not an indirect object.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Nothing has happened to you (plural) when I <b>Sa'ang</b>
my heart either, except possibly that I have caused photons of
certain wavelengths to enter your eyes.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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 <b>tIqwIj vI'ang,</b>
<b>tIqwIj<i> </i></b>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 <i>reveal</i>
directly on the direct object, <i>my heart.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsu+mn60h0nyLpkpbN-m75YeQWTZ-+iksEpCrQ8QYNkMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an
indirect object meaning of <b>-vaD</b> until the second
edition and the Addendum is published with it. Here it tells
us, not that since <b>-vaD</b> 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 <b>-vaD</b>
on it, because Klingons consider the recipient of an action
someone whom the action is <i>intended for. </i>This was not
deducible prior to the second edition TKD and the canon that
led to it</p>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I am skeptical that using
<b>-vaD</b> 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 <b>-vaD</b> as
a beneficiary marker. Was there actually some Usenet
discussion in the intervening years where<b> -vaD</b> as an
indirect object marker was considered too controversial to
use? Or where the topic of indirect objects came up and nobody
thought of <b>-vaD</b>? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Don't take my statement too strongly. I don't mean to say there
was no way anybody could have come up with <b>-vaD</b> 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.</p>
<p>Yes, you could have taken "intended for" and decided "I give this
knife, and the giving is intended for you," and gotten <b>-vaD</b>
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.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsu+mn60h0nyLpkpbN-m75YeQWTZ-+iksEpCrQ8QYNkMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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 <b>-vaD.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsu+mn60h0nyLpkpbN-m75YeQWTZ-+iksEpCrQ8QYNkMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> (Similar to how Okrand
described <b>tlhej</b> as being used to translate the idea of
"with", without implying some kind of distinction between <b>tlhej</b>
when it's used to translate "with" vs. when it's not.)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>That's just an issue of techniques of translation, not the
meaning of morphemes or semantics or syntax. My talk of <b>-vaD</b>
has to do with purely Klingon grammar, without discussing
translations into other languages.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsu+mn60h0nyLpkpbN-m75YeQWTZ-+iksEpCrQ8QYNkMw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> The varying ways in which
Okrand has described using <b>-vaD</b> 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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There certainly is inconsistency in his terminology, and not only
with the <b>-vaD</b> issues. But he has only used the prefix
trick for indirect objects and never for benefactives.<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>