Is it the -qang suffix that's the problem, then?

Does yaSvaD taj nobqang qama' not have an indirect object now, because the giving is only potential and might not actually happen?

And would bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHta' now have an indirect object, because the killing has happened in reality and my beloved (the "you" being addressed) has received some sign of devotion from that?

In bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang, are the warriors not really a direct object, because they only exist hypothetically and therefore nothing is directly happening to them? Am I not a subject because I haven't actually done any killing yet? Where's the dividing line between semantic and syntactic role here? 

In any case, I'm not sure this discussion is going to get anywhere just relying on our own interpretations of Okrand's use of terminology, since we don't accept each other's interpretations.