<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 10/5/2017 12:43 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsDg83sfUZ06_n=2A7E_hNGkAD5y2huuSNS+HYA7KHd1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM,
SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>
wrote:
<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>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. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>"Something happening to you" is a very broad definition
of a recipient or indirect object.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I didn't give that as a definition; I offered it as a test.
You've got a <b>-vaD</b> noun, and you're trying to figure out
whether it has an indirect object meaning or a benefactive
meaning. Is the noun affected by action of the verb, or does the
verb merely describe its disposition toward the noun? That's the
test; it's not a definition.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsDg83sfUZ06_n=2A7E_hNGkAD5y2huuSNS+HYA7KHd1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">I think you might be trying too hard
to define a distinction you haven't shown to exist. English
grammar doesn't make these fine-grained distinctions between
what is and isn't an indirect object. Every English class
I've had would argue that "you" in "I do something for you"
and "Too much food is bad for you" are both indirect
objects. There may be a distinction in higher-level
linguistics that says otherwise, but that's not the level of
technicality that Okrand uses to talk about Klingon in
general or about indirect objects in specific. I don't see
why his use of the English term "indirect object" when
talking about the prefix trick must necessarily exclude
benefactives as you've defined them.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Okrand fails to mention lots of technical linguistics when
presenting his prescriptive rules; that doesn't mean they don't
exist. He fails to mention the word <i>genitive</i> completely,
but although the noun-noun construction is described only as
possessive, it's actually genitive, and there is a difference.
This difference becomes important for constructions like <b>jIH
'em</b><i> area in front of me,</i> which previously we all
thought would be expressed as <b>'emwIj</b> because we figured it
was just a possessive idea, but it turns out that, one regional
dialect notwithstanding, it's not. These linguistic technicalities
matter, whether Okrand describes them or not, because he uses them
anyway.</p>
<p>And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of asking him for further
clarification of <b>-vaD</b> and the prefix trick; I'm not saying
there's nothing to learn here. I don't <i>know</i> that you can't
say <b>muqab</b> instead of <b>jIHvaD qab;</b> I've been very
explicit all along that I don't <i>know</i> that this is how it
works. But these differences are known in linguistics, the
dictionary was amended in a way that puts a spotlight on this
distinction, and we haven't yet seen anything that contradicts
what I'm saying.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOsDg83sfUZ06_n=2A7E_hNGkAD5y2huuSNS+HYA7KHd1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">
<div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">I found an
example from KGT where Okrand uses the term "indirect
object" in a situation where the verb is for someone,
not the direct object:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>The verb <b>QIj</b> ("explain") is a standard term
somewhat close to this in meaning, though the object
of <b>QIj</b> is that which is explained, while the
person to whom the explanation is given is the
indirect object: <b>yaSvaD nab QIj</b> ("He/she
explains the plan to the officer"; <b>yaSvaD</b>,
"for the officer"; <b>nab</b>, "plan"). <i>(KGT, p.
149)</i> <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">The plan
isn't necessarily for the officer, but the explaining
is. (Also, the gloss of <b>yaSvaD</b> is "<i>for</i>
the officer", which suggests that "indirect object" can
be used to refer to the benefactive meaning originally
described for <b>-vaD</b>.) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>That describes an indirect object, not a benefactive as I've been
using the term. You are being given the plan. When you hear
something, or see something, or learn something, it is
linguistically conceived of as an actual thing that you are given.
It's kind of like how in English TIME = SPACE. Whenever you talk
about time, you talk about it in spatial terms. "At" 12:00. Time
"passes." Summer is "here." The future is yet to "come." Time
isn't space, but English treats it as if it were. Well, English
treats targets of speeches or visions as if they had been handed a
package. Whether Klingon does the same is a fair question, which
this example might be confirmation of.</p>
<p>I think you're getting confused by the English translations. It
doesn't matter whether something is translated with <i>to</i> or
<i>for;</i> it's the concept that counts. Is there an inherent
difference in concept between the <b>-vaD</b> in <b>Qu'vaD lI'
De'vam</b> and <b>yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'</b>? I think there
is, and the concept exists in linguistic studies, and Okrand went
out of his way to introduce the difference in the addendum. The
meanings are related, which is why the dictionary says that "the
indirect object may be considered the beneficiary," but they're
not identical.</p>
<p><b>yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'</b> can theoretically mean either (a)
the prisoner handed the officer a knife, or (b) the prisoner
handed <i>someone else</i> a knife for the officer's sake. These
are different concepts. This is the difference I am pointing to.
You're most likely to interpret it as (a) an indirect object, but
given the right context you could interpret it as (b) a
benefactive.<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>