<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2022 11:25 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
An indirect object (the linguistic term is apparently
“beneficiary”, though I’m not a linguist and the detailed answer
is probably more nuanced, as the more linguistically inclined will
surely correct) is a specific kind of object. </blockquote>
<p><i>Beneficiary</i> is a nontechnical description of what an
indirect object is. <i>Indirect object</i> is the linguistic
term. It refers to whoever or whatever "receives" or is the
"beneficiary" of the action or the result of the action. There is
another term, <i>benefactive,</i> which is a noun case that
indicates someone who actually benefits from an action. Klingon <b>-vaD</b>
puts nouns into the benefactive case. In Klingon, the benefactive
case is also used to indicate an indirect object, which can be
viewed as a subset of the benefactive: receiving the result of the
action is like a kind of benefit.</p>
<p>A direct object, on the other hand, is someone or something upon
which the action is directed. The subject acts upon or toward the
direct object.</p>
<p>In Klingon, the "object" is <i>usually</i> a direct object. You
can say <b>taj vInob</b><i> I give the knife</i> (the knife is
the direct object), but you cannot say <b>SoH qanob</b> <i>I
give (something to) you</i> (where you are the indirect object)
or even just <b>qanob</b>. You can't say <i>I give you</i> in
English, either, if you intend <i>you</i> to be an indirect
object.</p>
<p>But there are times when the object is more flexible. Whenever
you use <b>-moH,</b> you have a choice: does the object continue
to represent the patient acted upon by the agent (let's just
assume patients and agents for now, rather than themes and
experiencers and so on), or does it represent the receiver
(indirect object) of the result of the agent acting upon the
patient? It can be either, because the receiver of the action can
be thought of as the one acted upon by the causer. But the patient
is more closely tied to the action than the receiver is, so if
there is a conflict and both want to be the object, the patient
wins and the receiver is marked as a benefactive.</p>
<p>The verb prefix also shows that flexibility in the prefix trick.
When it's allowed, it means the prefix agrees with the indirect
object instead of any direct object, but it's tricky because it
also means the indirect object must be elided. It only ever agrees
with an unstated word. That's why you can't say<b> qanob</b> or <b>SoH
qanob</b> or even <b>SoHvaD qanob.</b> But you <i>can</i> say
<b>taj qanob</b> because it meets the requirements of the prefix
trick.</p>
<p>So the object argument of a Klingon verb is not necessarily
always a direct object, but it can only represent an indirect
object under certain circumstances. It's not purely optional.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">I still
argue that it would be just as accurate to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’
tera’nganpu’ vIghojmoH}, but that’s my original construction,
never backed by canon, so it cannot be relied on as correct. It
merely fails to break any rules we have had explained to us, and
its meaning is obvious.</blockquote>
<p>It does not break any rules, but its meaning is only obvious if
you already know what it's supposed to mean.</p>
<p>I could argue that I could just as easily say <b>tlhIngan Holmo'
tera'ngan vIghojmoH</b><i> I teach the Terran because of the
Klingon language,</i> and <i>obviously</i> I'm saying that
because I'm talking about teaching and a cause, that cause is what
causes me to teach the Terran, so I must be teaching that
language. I could argue that <b>tlhIngan HolvaD tera'ngan
vIghojmoH</b> is what we should say because by teaching the
Terran Klingon, the Klingon language receives a benefit, so <i>obviously</i>
I must be teaching Klingon. But none of these, including yours,
actually express the idea I want to get across; they just skirt
around the idea and hope you'll make the connection. You could
take this to another extreme: <b>qoSDaj'e' vaS'a''e' tlhIngan
Hol'e' tera'ngan'e' jIghojmoH</b><i> As for his birthday, as for
the Great Hall, as for the Klingon language, as for the Terran,
I teach. </i>Well, <i>obviously</i> it means I'm teaching the
Terran the Klingon language in the Great Hall on his birthday.
You've got a day, a place, a person, a language, and teaching.
What else could it possibly mean?</p>
<p>Just sticking an <b>-'e'</b> on a noun doesn't <i>really</i>
tell you what its function is in the sentence. Yes, it's the
topic, but how does it interact with all the of the other entities
in the sentence? It doesn't say. "This sentence is about X" begs
the question "So what did X do?" Saying "X'e' N1 V N2" tells you
all about what N1 and N2 did, but nothing about what X did.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">You can
also probably argue that to a Klingon linguist, other Type 5
marked nouns are special types of objects of the verb. If you
don’t have any Type 5 marking on a noun before a verb, it’s not a
direct object. It’s just an object. Klingon doesn’t have a suffix
for direct object because it doesn’t really have the category of
“direct object”. It’s just the leftover kind of object of the
verb. If it is an object and it CAN’T take a Type 5 suffix, then a
human-language linguist would call it a direct object, but a
Klingon linguist would just call it an object and be done with it.</blockquote>
<p>Nooooooooooo, nonononono. Those aren't objects. Those are nouns
in roles other than object or subject. Object is a role. Subject
is a role. Those other nouns are in roles like "locative,"
"benefactive," and "cause." Instead of being identified by their
position in the sentence, they're identified by their endings. I'm
sorry we don't have a nice, neat term for "noun role besides
object or subject," but that's what they are. I tend to call them
"syntactic nouns" or "syntactic noun phrases," since they're nouns
or noun phrases marked by "syntactic markers," but this isn't a
very good name.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class="">Objects marked with Type 5 noun suffixes (except
{-‘e’}, which is always special) are required to precede the
verb, just like what human linguists call direct objects,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, "any noun in the sentence indicating something other than
subject or object comes first, before the object noun."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class=""> though the prefix on the verb exclusively refers to
generic objects lacking a Type 5 suffix, whether those objects
are stated or implied (witness the Prefix Trick). The prefix
trick takes what we would call the indirect object, and because
it is absent and by necessity has no suffix, points to it as an
object, which it is. This is an alien justification for an
accidental similarity to the English in “I gave you the pie.”
{chab qanob.} He’s not mimicking English. He has a REASON for
saying it that way. English doesn’t have a reason. It just does
it because it can, in its arbitrary way.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think it's quite clear that the prefix trick was a retroactive
explanation for too-close translations. He translated things like
<i>I give you the pie</i> as <b>chab qanob</b> because he read "I
give you" and found the <i>I+you(sing)</i> prefix, not
considering that in English it is an indirect object. When asked
about it, he came up with an explanation that mirrors what English
does and normalizes his previous errors. It was well done, but I'm
sure he didn't think this is what was happening from the start.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class="">As an extension of this, stative verbs (with “be” in
the definition, which can be used adjectivally) technically can
take objects, but only if they have a Type 5 noun suffix. They
can’t take generic objects. You need a suffix to explain the
relationship between stative verbs and their objects, as
locatives, topics, or beneficiaries, etc. Those qualified
objects still have to precede the verb, just like all Klingon
objects.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But quality verbs (not "stative verbs," which would include verbs
like <b>Qong</b><i> sleep,</i> which describes the state of being
asleep) <i>can</i> have objects... when they have <b>-moH</b> on
them.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class="">This can provide part of the explanation for the
weirdness of certain verbs with {-Daq} absent from their objects
or why {ghoS} can even be vague in terms of whether the object
should have a {-Daq} or a {-vo’}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's not vague. It's explained clearly in TKD: certain verbs
include a locative sense in their meanings, so their objects
already refer to places. Putting the "place" suffix <b>-Daq</b>
on one of these words wouldn't change its meaning in the sentence
at all, so you can do it, and the only cost is redundancy.</p>
<p>You can't say, for instance, <b>tajDaq vInob</b> because <b>nob</b>
does not have a place as its object, so you <i>are</i> changing
the meaning of the sentence by adding that <b>-Daq,</b> and that
meaning is inappropriate. The object of <b>nob</b> is the thing
given, not the location or destination of the action, so using a
location as its object is not allowed.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class=""> The sentence is {juH vIghoS} whether I’m going to
or from home because I’m moving along the “home path”,
regardless of which direction I’m traveling. If it’s important
that I let you know that I’m going FROM home as opposed to
toward it, I optionally can say {juHvo’ jIghoS}, but I’m not
WRONG if I just say {juH vIghoS}. I’m just being a little vague,
focusing on the route I’m traveling instead of the destination.
Note that I can’t say {juHDaq jIghoS} unless I am within the
boundaries of my home, so there is no way that I can
unambiguously tell you that I am going TOWARD my home. It’s what
I’m more commonly saying to you, but it’s never completely
explicit.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>juHDaq vIghoS</b><i> I am proceeding toward my home.</i> This
is unambiguous, disregarding interpretations of an elided pronoun
like <b>juHDaq ghaH vIghoS</b>.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class="">The prefix, oddly, doesn’t indicate an object for
qualified (suffixed) objects. It just indicates the link between
the verb and its vaguely remainder type of object that doesn’t
have a suffix, which isn’t a direct object because, hey,
Klingons are ALIEN and their language is ALIEN.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Or you can take that as evidence that nouns marked as something
other than object or subject simply aren't objects or subjects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51C8D51A-F9C7-4498-BA56-F64B1B1B8A47@gmail.com">
<div class="">Get used to it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed.<br>
</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>