On 10/4/2017 12:33 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
I don't think you can use it for any application of *-vaD,* only for when *-vaD* indicates an indirect object. In your *qaHoHqang* example, for instance, *SoH* is not an indirect object: *SoH* benefits from the action, but the action does not result in something actually given to *SoH.*
Out of the three verbs I can think of that have been used with the prefix trick -- *nob*, *'ang*, and *jatlh* -- only the first involves actually giving someone something. In the case of *tIqwIj Sa'angnIS* or *tlhIngan Hol qajatlh*, *tlhIH* or *SoH* are benefiting from the action but aren't really getting anything out of it physically.
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.
(Also, is the assumed distinction between meanings of *-vaD* a carryover from the ways that suffix is translated into English? Do Klingon grammarians make a distinction between the *jIHvaD* in *jiHvaD taj Danobpu'* and in *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq*?)
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. And the prefix trick works with indirect objects, not beneficiaries. You can look at it this (inexact) way: Klingon has the distinct semantic roles of "indirect object" and "benefactive," and both are marked with the "beneficiary" suffix, *-vaD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name