<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/22/2021 10:59 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E6E6367-DB8E-4367-A958-647816393B61@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Thanks. This helps a lot.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The remaining thing that I wonder is that, given the right
context and given the fluidity between beneficiary {-vaD} and
indirect-object-grammatically-indicated-in-Object-position that
is common to Klingon, I could see a conversation like:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>{nuqDaq nuH?}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>{vInob.}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>{‘Iv Danob?}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>{HoD vInob.}</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that under normal circumstances that {nob} would not
have an indirect object in the grammatically-object position
with no noun suffix, but all the reasons to shortcut the
indirect object in that position in other cases apply here
because of the obvious context of the thread. I also agree that
the entire conversation is grammatically flawed, but easily
understandable, all because of the context threaded through it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I honestly don't think the concept of "indirect or direct object
in object position" applies to all verbs. We know of a couple
where it does (like <b>ja'</b>), and it generally can with
anything to do with <b>-moH,</b> but I don't think it can be
applied across the board. I don't think <b>vInob</b> can mean <i>I
gave (something unspecified) to him.</i></p>
<p>The reason it works for verbs with <b>-moH</b> is because these
verbs have multiple entities acting on multiple entities. If we
have the sentence <b>Ha'DIbaH vISop</b> <i>I eat the meat,</i>
we have an agent <b>(jIH)</b> and a patient <b>(Ha'DIbaH).</b>
With no other noun roles in the sentence, the patient is expressed
as a subject (it goes after the verb) and the patient is expressed
as an object (it goes before the verb).</p>
<p>If we now look at the sentence <b>jIH muSopmoH vutwI'</b><i> The
cook makes me eat,</i> we see different semantics. We still have
an agent (<b>jIH:</b> I'm still eating the meat), but we no longer
have a patient (nothing is being described as eaten). Instead we
have a causer. The apparent rules of Klingon say that if we have a
causer, it is expressed as a subject and any agent or patient or
theme or recipient (or maybe other semantic roles) is expressed as
an object. This is the same rule that makes the <b>tlhIngan </b>in
<b>Quch tlhIngan</b> <i>The Klingon is happy </i>jump to the
object position in <b>tlhIngan QuchmoH tI'rIlngan</b><i> The
Trill makes the Klingon happy.</i></p>
<p>And if we have the sentence <b>Ha'DIbaH SopmoH vutwI'</b><i> The
cook makes (someone) eat the meat,</i> we have the same causer <b>(vutwI')</b>
and a patient (<b>Ha'DIbaH:</b> the meat is having something done
to it), and by the same rule, we make the causer the subject and
the patient the object.</p>
<p>Then we have the case of <b>jIHvaD Ha'DIbaH SopmoH vutwI'</b><i>
The cook makes me eat the meat.</i> Same causer <b>(vutwI'),</b>
same agent <b>(jIH),</b> same patient <b>(Ha'DIbaH),</b> only
now there's no room for both the agent and the patient in object
position. You can only have one object. So the rule says to
express the agent as an indirect object, and to do that you mark
the agent with <b>-vaD</b> and stick it before the object. Then
the patient becomes the object.</p>
<p>And that's pretty much it. There are other possible semantic
roles, but they follow this pattern. For instance, <b>HumanvaD
QoQ 'IjmoH tlhIngan</b><i> The Klingon made the Human listen to
the music.</i> We still have a causer <b>(tlhIngan),</b> but
now we have an experiencer instead of an agent <b>(Human:</b> an
agent deliberately, not mindlessly, performs an action; an
experiencer experiences sensory or emotional input) and a theme
instead of a patient (<b>QoQ:</b> a patient undergoes the action
and changes its state; a theme undergoes an action and does not
change its state), and the rule has experiencers become indirect
objects and themes become objects. But Klingon does not actually
seem interested in the differences between agents and experiencers
and so on, so these variations aren't really all that important to
understanding how words are assigned to the syntax of Klingon.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E6E6367-DB8E-4367-A958-647816393B61@mac.com">
<div>The question is, does this ability to put an otherwise
{-vaD}worthy noun in the Object position rely wholly on the
specifics of common usage of the verb, the way that special
locative-related verbs use {-Daq}worthy nouns as unmarked
Objects, or is it more context flexible and vocabulary
independent, as is suggested by the prefix trick.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I think so, except when the verb has <b>-moH</b> on it,
which changes the semantics of the sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E6E6367-DB8E-4367-A958-647816393B61@mac.com">
<div>I doubt we have enough evidence to be sure, one way or the
other. Meanwhile, I doubt many people would have difficulty
understanding the above conversation.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Thee understand I, even this sentence grammatical not be.
Unuseful are you're distinction.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E6E6367-DB8E-4367-A958-647816393B61@mac.com">
<div>Then again, I doubt that we’ll ever see {QeD’e’ puqloDwI’
vIghojmoH}, even though that makes more sense to me than the
canon-proven, correct {puqloDwI’vaD QeD vIghojmoH}.<br>
<br>
The language doesn’t have to make sense according to my
arbitrary ideas or proclivities. A student of English would have
a LOT of suggestions about how English SHOULD work, but doesn’t,
given that we park in the driveway and drive on the parkway, but
we don’t park on the driveway or drive there, and we don’t drive
in the parkway or park there.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>And I'll go and explain to them exactly why we drive on the
parkway and park on the driveway. A parkway is so called because
it is lined by trees to make it park-like. A driveway is so called
because the word came into use back in a time when the only people
who had vehicles lived in houses set back from the road, and the
path the vehicle used to get from the road to the house was called
the <i>drive</i> or the <i>driveway.</i> As vehicles became more
available to the common man, who lived on smaller properties, the
path for the vehicle shortened until it was basically just one
car-length, and if you didn't have a building dedicated to storing
your vehicle, you parked it on that path, which was still called a
driveway.</p>
<p>So no, switching them is <i>not</i> the way English should work.</p>
<p>Most of English, even the spelling, makes a lot of sense if you
learn where it comes from. It's not <i>easy,</i> but there are
reasons for it.</p>
<p>By the way, we <i>do</i> park <i>on</i> the driveway as well as
<i>in</i> it. We do in my area, anyway. On the other hand, parking
<i>in</i> and <i>on</i> a parking lot refer to the same thing but
have different connotations: one refers to the the act of putting
the car there, while the other refers to the presence of the car
there.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E6E6367-DB8E-4367-A958-647816393B61@mac.com">
<div>Language is an arbitrary agreement among speakers of the
language, or among regulating authorities, when such authorities
exist. The French and Turkish speakers have such authorities.
English doesn’t. Klingon does.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Natural language is not arbitrary, language evolves in
environments that shape that evolution. Arbitrary is when language
authorities or creators legislate language change according to
their whims and possibly even ignorance of the reasons things are
the way they are. Speakers generally do not arbitrarily agree on
their language; they <i>acquire</i> the language or <i>learn</i>
it as a thing that exists.<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>