On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:32 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I didn't say anything about physically. The target of the prefix is someone who receives the outcome of the action. Sa'ang: you receive the outcome of my showing, you see something; qajatlh: you receive the outcome of my speaking, you hear something. But with muqab, I don't receive the outcome of its being bad. Nothing actually happens to me.

Something does happen to me, though - something bad. That's what jIHvaD qab ("For the purposes of me, it's bad", "It's bad for me") implies -- that whatever it is (e.g. too much Terran food) has or would have some negative outcome for me. Similar arguments could apply to my other examples: I receive the outcome of a building qawmoH by being reminded of something. My beloved receives the outcome of vIHoHqang by receiving the proof of my parmaq. (IMO, qawmoH is probably closest to the examples of Sa'ang and qajatlh, since in all three cases the outcome is some subjective experience on the part of the object.)

I don't think so. I think Okrand was looking for a way to express "indirect object," and saw that -vaD often did that job, because one sort of beneficiary is an indirect object. So he gives it this role in TKD Addendum 6.8. "The indirect object may be considered the beneficiary," not that the beneficiary may be considered the indirect object.

1) How do you know this for sure? We know TKD is not 100% linguistically precise.

2) Looking up the linguistic definition of "indirect object", it means something like "something indirectly affected by the action of the verb", which suggests that beneficiaries are a subset of indirect objects, not the other way around.

In any case, this disagreement demonstrates why I wanted to ask about the prefix trick in the first place.