On 10/5/2017 12:43 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
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.
"Something happening to you" is a very broad definition of a recipient or indirect object.
I didn't give that as a definition; I offered it as a test. You've got a *-vaD* noun, and you're trying to figure out whether it has an indirect object meaning or a benefactive meaning. Is the noun affected by action of the verb, or does the verb merely describe its disposition toward the noun? That's the test; it's not a definition.
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.
Okrand fails to mention lots of technical linguistics when presenting his prescriptive rules; that doesn't mean they don't exist. He fails to mention the word /genitive/ completely, but although the noun-noun construction is described only as possessive, it's actually genitive, and there is a difference. This difference becomes important for constructions like *jIH 'em*/area in front of me,/ which previously we all thought would be expressed as *'emwIj* because we figured it was just a possessive idea, but it turns out that, one regional dialect notwithstanding, it's not. These linguistic technicalities matter, whether Okrand describes them or not, because he uses them anyway. And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of asking him for further clarification of *-vaD* and the prefix trick; I'm not saying there's nothing to learn here. I don't /know/ that you can't say *muqab* instead of *jIHvaD qab;* I've been very explicit all along that I don't /know/ that this is how it works. But these differences are known in linguistics, the dictionary was amended in a way that puts a spotlight on this distinction, and we haven't yet seen anything that contradicts what I'm saying.
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:
The verb *QIj* ("explain") is a standard term somewhat close to this in meaning, though the object of *QIj* is that which is explained, while the person to whom the explanation is given is the indirect object: *yaSvaD nab QIj* ("He/she explains the plan to the officer"; *yaSvaD*, "for the officer"; *nab*, "plan"). /(KGT, p. 149)/
The plan isn't necessarily for the officer, but the explaining is. (Also, the gloss of *yaSvaD* is "/for/ the officer", which suggests that "indirect object" can be used to refer to the benefactive meaning originally described for *-vaD*.)
That describes an indirect object, not a benefactive as I've been using the term. You are being given the plan. When you hear something, or see something, or learn something, it is linguistically conceived of as an actual thing that you are given. It's kind of like how in English TIME = SPACE. Whenever you talk about time, you talk about it in spatial terms. "At" 12:00. Time "passes." Summer is "here." The future is yet to "come." Time isn't space, but English treats it as if it were. Well, English treats targets of speeches or visions as if they had been handed a package. Whether Klingon does the same is a fair question, which this example might be confirmation of. I think you're getting confused by the English translations. It doesn't matter whether something is translated with /to/ or /for;/ it's the concept that counts. Is there an inherent difference in concept between the *-vaD* in *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam* and *yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'*? I think there is, and the concept exists in linguistic studies, and Okrand went out of his way to introduce the difference in the addendum. The meanings are related, which is why the dictionary says that "the indirect object may be considered the beneficiary," but they're not identical. *yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'* can theoretically mean either (a) the prisoner handed the officer a knife, or (b) the prisoner handed /someone else/ a knife for the officer's sake. These are different concepts. This is the difference I am pointing to. You're most likely to interpret it as (a) an indirect object, but given the right context you could interpret it as (b) a benefactive. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name