<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/15/2021 10:19 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9D77D159-06C9-462E-AF9B-B6BFC3A03BC9@mac.com">To be
honest, when I read {yaSvaD taj vIqem}, I envisioned someone
walking with the officer on his beat, carrying the officer’s
knife, ready to hand it to him whenever he requested it. I would
have used {-Daq} if you really meant that you were some place
other than near the officer and you carried the knife to the
location of the officer in order to participate in the event of
giving the knife to the officer. More explicitly, I would have
said {yaSvaD taj vInobmeH yaSDaq taj vIqem.}</blockquote>
<p><b>yaSvaD taj vIqem</b> means both that you bring a knife for the
benefit of an officer and that you bring a knife in order to give
it to an officer (the only interpretation of <i>bring/indirect
object officer</i> I can think of). In isolation it doesn't mean
only one of those things. All you need is some context to make it
clear whether <b>-vaD </b>is acting as a beneficiary or the more
specific subset of that, an indirect object. You don't need that
whole sentence with the purpose clause to get this across: <b>yaSvaD
taj vIqem</b> will mean that when you're talking about a
situation in which you bring a knife to an officer to give it to
him or her.</p>
<p>The English preposition <i>to</i> can mean different things in
different contexts. <i>I bring the knife to the officer</i> uses
<i>to</i> to introduce a locative. <i>I give the knife to the
officer</i> uses <i>to</i> to introduce an indirect object. So
too does the Klingon suffix <b>-vaD</b> mean different things in
different contexts. <i>To</i> and <b>-vaD</b> just have
different meanings at different times. They are not equivalent.<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>