On 2/15/2021 10:19 AM, Will Martin wrote:
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.}
*yaSvaD taj vIqem* 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 /bring/indirect object officer/ 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 *-vaD *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: *yaSvaD taj vIqem* 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. The English preposition /to/ can mean different things in different contexts. /I bring the knife to the officer/ uses /to/ to introduce a locative. /I give the knife to the officer/ uses /to/ to introduce an indirect object. So too does the Klingon suffix *-vaD* mean different things in different contexts. /To/ and *-vaD* just have different meanings at different times. They are not equivalent. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name