is the choice between -Daq and -vaD influenced by the way something is given?
Read the following: yaSvaD taj vInob I give the knife to the officer yaSvaD taj vIqem I give the knife to the officer by bringing it to him yaSvaD taj vIngeH I give the knife to the officer by sending it to him So when giving something to someone we use the {-vaD} regardless whether we bring it to him, or send it to him. But would we use the {-vaD} too even if we threw the knife to him? Ha'DIbaHvaD chuvmey vIvo' I give the leftovers to the animal by throwing them to it Would this sentence be correct, or does the {vo'} change something, thus making the choice of {-vaD} wrong? I don't see any reason for the choice between {-Daq} and {-vaD} to be influenced by the way something is given, but I'd like to verify this. ~ Dana'an guess who's coming to dinner
On 2/15/2021 8:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Read the following:
yaSvaD taj vInob I give the knife to the officer
yaSvaD taj vIqem I give the knife to the officer by bringing it to him
You might give the knife to the officer, but you don't say so in this sentence. This sentence just says you bring the knife to the officer. Whether the officer picks it up after you bring it is another sentence.
yaSvaD taj vIngeH I give the knife to the officer by sending it to him
So when giving something to someone we use the {-vaD} regardless whether we bring it to him, or send it to him.
No. We use *-vaD* when we want to specify the recipient or beneficiary of the verb. When you're specifying a recipient, this role is called the /indirect object./
But would we use the {-vaD} too even if we threw the knife to him?
Ha'DIbaHvaD chuvmey vIvo' I give the leftovers to the animal by throwing them to it
You propel he leftovers, intending them to be received by the animal. That's a perfectly good use of the indirect object.
Would this sentence be correct, or does the {vo'} change something, thus making the choice of {-vaD} wrong?
I don't see any reason for the choice between {-Daq} and {-vaD} to be influenced by the way something is given, but I'd like to verify this.
If you said *Ha'DIbaHDaq chuvmey vIvo' */I throw the leftovers at the animal,/ then grammatically the animal is a target, not a recipient. You might intend this lobbing of leftovers as an act of giving, and this might come across in context, but it's not expressed in the sentence. *-Daq* means a location. *-vaD* means a recipient or other beneficiary. It's not about what verb you use. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
yaSvaD taj vIqem I give the knife to the officer by bringing it to him SuStel: You might give the knife to the officer, but you don't say so in this sentence. This sentence just says you bring the knife to the officer. Whether the officer picks it up after you bring it is another sentence.
Oh yes, you're right; I wrote the translation this way to differentiate between the "I bring the knife to the officer" meaning of the {yaSDaq taj vIqem}, which would mean "I bring the knife to the officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife is brought). jIH:
yaSvaD taj vIngeH I give the knife to the officer by sending it to him So when giving something to someone we use the {-vaD} regardless whether we bring it to him, or send it to him. SuStel: No. We use -vaD when we want to specify the recipient or beneficiary of the verb. When you're specifying a recipient, this role is called the indirect object.
Indeed, I made again the mistake of choosing this translation in order to differentiate between the "I send the knife to the officer" meaning of the {yaSDaq taj vIngeH} which would mean "I send the knife to the officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife is sent). This has always been a source of confusion for me; the fact that in english we use the word "to" to translate both the {-Daq} and the {-vaD}. ~ Dana'an taH pagh taHbe'
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.} charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 15, 2021, at 9:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
yaSvaD taj vIqem I give the knife to the officer by bringing it to him SuStel: You might give the knife to the officer, but you don't say so in this sentence. This sentence just says you bring the knife to the officer. Whether the officer picks it up after you bring it is another sentence.
Oh yes, you're right; I wrote the translation this way to differentiate between the "I bring the knife to the officer" meaning of the {yaSDaq taj vIqem}, which would mean "I bring the knife to the officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife is brought).
jIH:
yaSvaD taj vIngeH I give the knife to the officer by sending it to him So when giving something to someone we use the {-vaD} regardless whether we bring it to him, or send it to him. SuStel: No. We use -vaD when we want to specify the recipient or beneficiary of the verb. When you're specifying a recipient, this role is called the indirect object.
Indeed, I made again the mistake of choosing this translation in order to differentiate between the "I send the knife to the officer" meaning of the {yaSDaq taj vIngeH} which would mean "I send the knife to the officer" (with the officer being meant as the location where the knife is sent).
This has always been a source of confusion for me; the fact that in english we use the word "to" to translate both the {-Daq} and the {-vaD}.
~ Dana'an taH pagh taHbe' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
This is stated for amusement purposes only, okay. Context is always important. Imagine an animal capable of communicating with you sufficiently to complain to you about the smell of the leftovers, expressing refusal to offer you eggs, milk, or whatever, unless you get rid of these leftovers in the animal’s containment area. Now, read {Ha’DIbaHvaD chuvmey vIvo’.} I’d probably be saying that to describe me propelling the leftovers AWAY FROM THE ANIMAL. {-vaD} tells you nothing about direction, unless direction is associated with grammatical benefit for the beneficiary. {-Daq} suggests direction without any reference to an indirect object. It’s simply a location associated with the action of propelling. Of course, even then, you need some context to make it clear whether you are standing at the location, propelling something somewhere, or whether you are somewhere propelling something at the location. If you are thinking about {-Daq} contrasting with {-vo’}, you’d expect to be propelling something toward the locative reference, but it’s always valid to interpret the locative as describing the location that action is happening. That’s the problem with {-Daq}. It’s a location and it may or may not imply not a direction. {-vo’} is a location WITH a direction relative to that location. {-Daq} can suggest a target of an action or merely the location the action happens. Usually, if an action is of a type that has an implied target, we interpret it as the target, but most actions don’t even have motion or direction, and those are generally expected to occur at the location of the locative, and you can’t be sure that an action that implies motion isn’t also something that is happening at the location of the locative, without context. And then you have {ghoS} and its ilk. {X-Daq Y vIghoS} means either you are at X headed for Y, or X is a medium of travel (like a river or a ship) in order to get to Y, or maybe even that Y is your destination, and you’ll get there via a path/course/heading that is more strongly associated with Y than X is, so you are saying something like “I’m headed to Vienna, VA on the Washington DC road.” {X vIghoS} means “I’m moving along a path named by X.” That most commonly means X is the target of the path, but not necessarily. X could be some other point along the path, including the point you are starting from, or somewhere behind you. As always, the more context both people share, the less careful and explicit the choice of words needs to be. pItlh lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
On Feb 15, 2021, at 8:35 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
But would we use the {-vaD} too even if we threw the knife to him?
Ha'DIbaHvaD chuvmey vIvo' I give the leftovers to the animal by throwing them to it You propel he leftovers, intending them to be received by the animal. That's a perfectly good use of the indirect object.
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin