On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang

SoHvaD is not an indirect object; it is a benefactive. Now I wish I hadn't suggested the "happen to" test to you, because you're totally misapplying and misunderstanding it. The sentence is not about your beloved receiving a presentation involving killing; it is only about your willingness to kill, and your beloved is the one who will benefit from it.

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?

Just stop. You're not understanding my "happens to" test, and you're completely screwing it up. This has nothing to do with what I said. Just forget it.

You didn't give anything to your beloved; your beloved isn't described as receiving speech or an image or a thing. That she is addressed in the sentence is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with indirect objects or benefactives.

 

Receiving things is not how Okrand describes the role of the indirect object. That's a definition you introduced, not a universally-accepted one. Okrand doesn't talk about what he means specifically by "indirect object" at all, only that it can be considered a beneficiary of the action, which does not imply that his definition is as specific and narrow as the one you're using.

Okrand twice calls an object "the recipient of [the] action." That is not what the object of a verb is. An object is the thing that is acted upon by the subject, not that receives the action done by the subject.

In Object-Verb-Subject, we are told that the object is the recipient of the action of the verb done by the subject. Oh yeah? yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'. Did the knife receive anything? tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'. Did my chronometer receive anything? No. Okrand's explanation of what an object is is just plain wrong.

Then he goes and talks about indirect objects. He doesn't define an indirect object, but he says it can be considered the beneficiary. That's not a definition; that's a categorization. Whatever an indirect object is, it fits into the category of beneficiary.

I'll tell you what an indirect object is (again). An indirect object is what receives the direct object. If Okrand means anything other than this when he says "indirect object," he has given absolutely no indication. But he DOES dedicate a section of the Addendum to it.

jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq - "I admit that using the prefix trick with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch."

Why? If there's no difference between types of -vaD, what could possibly be wrong with it? What distinction between that and known good examples are you making?

The difference is that stative verbs never have direct objects, whereas the definition of the prefix trick mentions third-person direct objects specifically, and the known examples of the prefix trick include at least an implied direct object. This struck me as a potentially significant difference. My concern has nothing to do with -vaD.

And do you know why that feels wrong to you on intransitive verbs? It's because in English intransitive verbs do not take indirect objects. Qu'vaD Hegh he dies for the mission. Not an indirect object; a benefactive. Not a stative verb; an intransitive action verb.

The reason to think that is that Okrand describes the prefix trick for "indirect objects," not for beneficiaries, not for benefactives, not for any noun with -vaD. "Indirect objects." I see no reason to think he uses the term "indirect object" to refer to any kind of -vaD noun.

Every time he's talked about the role of -vaD nouns since TKDa, he's talked about them as indirect objects,

No, every time he's talked about indirect objects since the Addendum, he's talked about words that get -vaD added to them.

There are a lot of things he could have given more examples for, I agree. But "indirect object" is a pretty basic concept of English syntax

It's not a pretty basic concept. You don't get it yourself.

that is not obviously addressed in the first edition of TKD,

It is not addressed AT ALL in the first edition. AT ALL.

and he may have wanted to talk about it specifically. Maybe someone bugged him about it. I can't speak to what Okrand was thinking 30-some-odd years ago, but I don't think any major conclusions should be drawn based on what got included in the addendum and how it was arranged.

Everything in the Addendum comes from Star Treks V and VI and from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Okrand was not yet interacting much with fans when it was published. I think he'd given some words and phrases to veS QonoS by then.

I'm not aware of any use of -vaD after Valkris's Qu'vaD lI' and prior to the publication of the second edition, so I have no idea what prompted Okrand to include it in the Addendum.

1) When you talk about "indirect objects" (for instance, when talking about the prefix trick), are you using it to mean all nouns with the -vaD suffix? Or are there uses of -vaD that you don't count as indirect objects (and therefore can't be used with the prefix trick)? If the latter is true, what is your definition for when a noun with -vaD is or isn't an indirect object?

I've answered this over and over in this thread.

2) Can be the prefix trick be used in all situations with indirect objects (however those turn out to be defined)? Or are there exceptions? Are there certain verbs that can never take it? Is its use limited to a small subset of verbs?

If by "indirect objects" you mean "nouns with -vaD," which is not what I mean by it, then this is the question. I have given my opinion and my reasons, both regarding different types of -vaD nouns and different prefixes that are allowed to participate.

3) Can the prefix trick be used with stative verbs that have a -vaD noun with them? For instance, is it acceptable to turn the phrase jIHvaD lI' De'vam "This information is useful for me" into mulI' De'vam? If not, is it because the -vaD noun doesn't count as an indirect object when used with stative verbs, or because the prefix trick needs direct objects which stative verbs can't have, or because of some other reason?

This is the same question as 2.

(And to tie in a question from the other thread about subtitles:)

4) Is the prefix trick still strictly limited to 1st/2nd-person indirect objects with 3rd-person direct objects, as it was first described? If someone uses it with a different arrangement of persons in a way that's not confusing, is this acceptable, or is this considered "intentional ungrammaticality"?

If me talk like caveman when me hang out with me friends, do them accept me talking this way, knowing me do it on purpose?

But if you agree that that's how "it was first described" (which is what Lieven is arguing against), then there's no reason to think anything has changed. Lieven's Star Trek Discovery transcript is not canon.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name