<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:<span class="gmail-"></span><br><span class="gmail-"></span><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"><span class="gmail-">
</span><span class="gmail-"><p><b>bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang<br>
</b></p>
</span><p><b>SoHvaD</b> is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now
I wish I hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because
you're totally misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence
is not about your beloved receiving a presentation involving
killing; it is only about your willingness to kill, and your
beloved is the one who will benefit from it.</p></div></blockquote><div>Is it the <b>-qang</b> suffix that's the problem, then?<br></div><div>Does <span class="gmail-im"><b>yaSvaD taj nobqang qama' </b>not have an indirect object now, because the giving is only potential and might not actually happen?<br></span></div><div>And would <span class="gmail-"><b>bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' </b>now have an indirect object, because the killing has happened in reality and my beloved (the "you" being addressed) has received some sign of devotion from that?</span></div><div><span class="gmail-"><b></b></span></div><div><span class="gmail-im"><b></b></span></div><div>In<span class="gmail-"><b> bangwI',</b></span><b> </b><span class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-"></span><b><span class="gmail-">SoHvaD</span> wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang</b>, are the warriors not really a direct object, because they only exist hypothetically and therefore nothing is directly happening to them? Am I not a subject because I haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the dividing line between semantic and syntactic role here?</span></div><div><span class="gmail-"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">You didn't give
anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't described as
receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is addressed in
the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with indirect
objects or benefactives.</span></blockquote> <div><span id="gmail-TKDText">Receiving things is not how Okrand describes the role of the indirect object. That's a definition you introduced, not a universally-accepted one. Okrand doesn't talk about what he means specifically by "indirect object" at all, only that it can be considered a beneficiary of the action, which does not imply that his definition is as specific and narrow as the one you're using. <br></span></div><div><span id="gmail-TKDText"><br></span></div><div><span id="gmail-TKDText">(Also, to clarify: I just now realized that part of the confusion might be because I'm using "my beloved" to refer to the <b>SoH</b> in <b>SoHvaD</b>. Since my beloved is the one being addressed, <b>SoH</b> and <b>bangwI'</b> would refer to the same person, but the semantic identity doesn't mean they're grammatically in the same role. I do understand that the actual noun <b>bangwI'</b> is grammatically a term of address and not even potentially an indirect object. <b>HIvqa' veqlargh.</b>)<br></span></div></div><div><span class="gmail-"><b></b></span></div><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><span class="gmail-"></span></p><span class="gmail-"><p><b>jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq</b> - "I admit that using the
prefix trick with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."</p>
</span><p>Why? If there's no difference between types of <b>-vaD,</b> what
could possibly be wrong with it? <i>What distinction between that
and known good examples are you making?</i></p></div></blockquote><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">The difference is that stative verbs never have direct objects, whereas the definition of the prefix trick mentions third-person direct objects specifically, and the known examples of the prefix trick include at least an implied direct object. This struck me as a potentially significant difference. My concern has nothing to do with<b> -vaD</b>.<span class="gmail-"><br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix
trick for "indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for
benefactives, not for any noun with <b>-vaD.</b> "Indirect
objects." I see no reason to think he uses the term "indirect
object" to refer to any kind of <b>-vaD</b> noun.</p></blockquote><div>Every time he's talked about the role of <b>-vaD </b>nouns since TKDa, he's talked about them as indirect objects, which suggests that either he's completely forgotten about the idea that<b> -vaD</b> nouns can be beneficiaries, or that he is using the term "indirect object" in the non-technical English-class-level sense that includes beneficiaries. The latter makes much more sense to me.<span class="gmail-"></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p>But why? Why would he add to the Addendum a whole section unto
itself called "Indirect Objects" if these were just a new name for
the familiar <b>-vaD</b>? There are sooo many areas that are left
vague in TKD, and this is the only one he thought he'd just give a
couple of examples, to be helpful? Every single other section of
the Addendum adds something new, something previously unknown or
not explained correctly. In this one section he's going to
elaborate on something he'd already explained, but maybe you
didn't notice all the possibilities because he didn't use a
particular phrase? Really?</p></blockquote></div><div>Why not? You said so yourself: "The Addendum is all about new stuff that got added
<i>or clarified</i> since the first edition." If it had occured to him after TKD was written that he wanted to clarify or define this more precisely, where else would he
put it? I don't think the section labeling of the
addendum is intended as a strict arrangement of linguistic concepts. </div><div><br></div><div>There are a lot of things he could have given more examples for, I agree. But "indirect object" is a pretty basic concept of English syntax that is not obviously addressed in the first edition of TKD, and he may have wanted to talk about it specifically. Maybe someone bugged him about it. I can't speak to what Okrand was thinking 30-some-odd years ago, but I don't think any major conclusions should be drawn based on what got included in the addendum and how it was arranged.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, I'm not sure this discussion is going to get anywhere just relying on our own interpretations of Okrand's use of terminology, since we don't accept each other's interpretations. So I've revised my questions to be more specific about the issues brought up here, and hopefully they can be run by Maltz at some point:<br></div><div><br></div><div>1) When you talk about "indirect objects" (for instance, when talking about the prefix trick), are you using it to mean all nouns with the <b>-vaD</b> suffix? Or are there uses of <b>-vaD</b> that you don't count as indirect objects (and therefore can't be used with the prefix trick)? If the latter is true, what is your definition for when a noun with <b>-vaD</b> is or isn't an indirect object?<br></div><div><br></div><div>2) Can be the prefix trick be used in all situations with indirect objects (however those turn out to be defined)? Or are there exceptions? Are there certain verbs that can never take it? Is its use limited to a small subset of verbs?<br></div><div><br></div><div>3) Can the prefix trick be used with stative verbs that have a <b>-vaD</b> noun with them? For instance, is it acceptable to turn the phrase <b>jIHvaD lI' De'vam</b> <i>"This information is useful for me"</i> into <b>mulI' De'vam</b>? If not, is it because the <b>-vaD</b> noun doesn't count as an indirect object when used with stative verbs, or because the prefix trick needs direct objects which stative verbs can't have, or because of some other reason?<br></div><div><br></div><div>(And to tie in a question from the other thread about subtitles:)</div><div>4) Is the prefix trick still strictly limited to 1st/2nd-person indirect objects with 3rd-person direct objects, as it was first described? If someone uses it with a different arrangement of persons in a way that's not confusing, is this acceptable, or is this considered "intentional ungrammaticality"?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br></div></div>