<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">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. It would include most kinds of objects, probably a few subjects too, and also the <b>-vaD</b> nouns in my examples:<br></div><div><b>bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang</b> - Some presentation or demonstration of love and devotion is happening to my beloved. My beloved is receiving a presentation that involves killing a thousand warriors.<br><b style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh</b> - Remembrance is happening to me. I am receiving some kind of sensory stimulus that causes me to remember.<br></div><div><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. But even in this case, some bad thing is happening to me (or would happen to me, or generally happens to me, or happens to me over time) as a result of too much Terran food. I am receiving some kind of badness from that food - indigestion, cholesterol, disdain from my Klingon peers, etc.<br></div><div><br></div><div></div><div></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">Benefactives are about the verb being for someone;
indirect objects are about the direct object being for someone.</div></blockquote><div></div><div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"><div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"><br></div><div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">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 style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"><br></div><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 style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"><br></div><div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;">My guess is that he started using "indirect object" as a simple way to refer to nouns with <b>-vaD</b>, in the same way one might refer to a noun with <b>-Daq</b> as a locative noun instead of saying "noun with <b>-Daq</b>" over and over.<br></div><div style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;"></div></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>
</p><span class="gmail-"></span></div></blockquote><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>
</p><span class="gmail-">
</span><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></div></blockquote><div>My argument is that, until Okrand says otherwise, the two uses of <b>-vaD</b> you've talked about are ultimately the same, and that the apparent distinction between "benefactive" <b>-vaD</b> and "indirect object" <b>-vaD</b> is an artifact of how two distinct kinds of English phrasing are translated using the same suffix. (In the same way that phrases using "with" and phrases about accompanying that don't use "with" can both be translated using <b>tlhej</b>, which is the analogy I was going for.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>But he has only used the prefix
trick for indirect objects and never for benefactives.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Aside from my assertion that there's no real difference between those two things, he hasn't used the prefix trick very often at all, even in cases where it would probably not be controversial to do so. I found two such cases in a quick browse of the paq'batlh:</div><div><b>tlhIHvaD SuvwI'pu'vam vIDelpu'</b> - paq'batlh, p. 133: paq'raD canto 12, line 2. (<b>Del</b> has not been used with the prefix trick before but the meaning is similar to how indirect objects are used with <b>jatlh</b> - a description is being given to you all, you all are receiving a description.)<br></div><div><b>SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh</b> - paq'batlh, p. 147: paq'raD canto 16, line 25. (<b>qem</b> is one of the verbs used in the original description of indirect objects in TKDa.<b> SoHvaD</b> in this sentence has the role that is explicitly described as the indirect object in that example. The prefix trick could be used, but it is not.)<br></div></div></div></div>