On 10/4/2017 11:20 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:

5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?

I don't think you even need Okrand for this one. Is there any reason to suspect *Duj wejwIjDIch* even works?

I thought the question was whether it was *DujwIj wejDIch* or *Duj wejDIchwIj* (or either). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/4/2017 11:20 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:

5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ?

...

I don't think you even need Okrand for this one. Is there any reason to suspect *Duj wejwIjDIch* even works?

I thought the question was whether it was *DujwIj wejDIch* or *Duj wejDIchwIj* (or either).

That makes a little more sense, though I'm still not sure why *Duj wejDIchwIj* is under consideration either. Asking about something like *DujDaq wejDIch* vs. *Duj wejDIchDaq* would at least make some sense, since we know type 5 noun suffixes move around like that. But possession suffixes don't hop around like that, and *wejDIch* isn't a noun.

mayqel qunenoS:

...

5. Duj wejwIjDIch or DujwIj wejDIch ?

nIqolay Q:

I don't think you even need Okrand for this one. Is there any reason to suspect Duj wejwIjDIch even works?

None that I know of. The two number suffixes -DIch and -logh attach directly to the number, with nothing in between, or even attached to non-numbers such as 'ar and Hoch: (TKD 54): Ordinal numbers (first, second, etc.) are formed by adding -DIch to the numbers: wa'DIch first, cha'DIch second, HutDIch ninth. Ordinal numbers follow the noun: meb cha'DIch second guest. (KGT 176f): Several of these made-up words involve constructions normally restricted to numbers. The suffix -DIch is attached to a number to form an ordinal number: wa' (one), wa'DIch (first); cha' (two), cha'DIch (second); vagh (five), vaghDIch (fifth). Ordinal numbers follow the noun with which they are associated, as in 'avwI' vaghDIch (fifth guard), nentay wa'DIch (First Rite of Ascension). Sometimes the suffix is heard attached to pagh (zero, none), producing the technically ungrammatical term paghDIch (zeroth). It is used to describe something that was expected to occur but has not, or that could conceivably occur but has not. For example, one might say pawpu' 'avwI' paghDIch (the zeroth guard has arrived), implying that no guard has arrived even though one (and probably more than one) is expected. Similarly, one might describe how to wield a painstik during the Rite of Ascension by saying: 'oy'naQ DaQeqDI' mIw wa'DIch Data', 'ach 'oy'naQ Dachu'DI' mIw paghDIch Data' (When you aim the painstik, you accomplish the first step, but when you turn the painstik on, you accomplish the zeroth step). The implication here is that activating the painstik must be done before beginning the ritualistic part of the ceremony. On the other extreme, when -DIch is attached to Hoch (all), the resulting word, HochDIch (allth) is used as an alternate for Qav (be final, last) to refer to the final one of a series whose members either were counted or could have been counted, as in pIpyuS pach HochDIch DaSoppu' (You've eaten the last pipius claw). The word also may be used to describe the final step of a process. Speaking of the Rite of Ascension, one might say 'oy'naQ Dachu'Ha'DI' mIw HochDIch Data' (When you turn the painstik off, you accomplish the last step). (TKD 55): Adding -logh to a number gives the notion of repetitions. wa'logh once, cha'logh twice, Hutlogh nine times. These numbers function in the sentence as adverbials (section 5.4). (KGT 178): The suffix -logh, when attached to numbers, is used to count the number of instances of something: wa'logh (once), cha'logh (twice), vaghlogh (five times). When -logh is attached to pagh (zero), the resulting form, paghlogh (zero times) is used as an emphatic alternate for not (never), as in paghlogh jegh tlhIngan SuvwI' (a Klingon warrior surrenders zero times)... compare not jegh tlhIngan SuvwI' (a Klingon warrior never surrenders). Similarly, when -logh is attached to Hoch (all), the resulting word, Hochlogh (all times), is used in the same way as reH (always), as in Hochlogh no' yIquvmoH (All times honor your ancestors...); compare reH no' yIquvmoH (Always honor your ancestors). Okrand later extended this to 'arlogh "how many times?" (st.klingon 2/1999): 'arlogh wab Qoylu'pu'? How many times has someone heard the sound? How many times has the sound been heard? [st.k 2/1999] qen 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? Recently, how many times has someone heard it? (i.e. What time is it?) [st.k 2/1999] -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:

This makes me wonder how you'd respond to adding the suffix after the ordinal?

Thus, *my third ship* - *Duj wejDIchwIj*

You don't posses the "third" though, you posses the ship. DujwIj wejDIch - Out of the collection of ships that are mine, the third one is the topic qurgh

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:46 AM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com

...

wrote:

This makes me wonder how you'd respond to adding the suffix after the ordinal?

Thus, *my third ship* - *Duj wejDIchwIj*

You don't posses the "third" though, you posses the ship.

DujwIj wejDIch - Out of the collection of ships that are mine, the third one is the topic

You make a compelling argument. And I confess I just popped into the middle of this thread so I'll yield to your assertion that "the third one is the topic"

And yet, as has been pointed out, a number (in this case, an ordinal number) is a noun. So I have to disagree with your point that you "don't posses [sic] the "third" though, you posses [sic] the ship."

Duj wejDIchwIj - there are many ships, but third one is mine.

To me {wejDIch} isn't a thing that can be owned by someone, it's simply a way to count things in a list. Putting a possessive on it just seems strange to my mind. "My four children" would be {loS puqwI'}. If I label {puqwI'} as the first, second, third, etc, they are still {puqwI'}, they are just {puqwI' wa'DIch, puqwI' cha'DIch, puqwI' wejDIch, etc}. Duj law' tu'lu' 'a Duj wejDIch 'oH DujwIj'e'. - There are many ships, but the third one is mine.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:41 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I don't happen to agree with *Duj wejDIchwIj,* but it's worth getting clarification.

I would interpret *Duj wejDIchwIj* not as mine being the third ship out of many ships, but everybody has many ships, and let's talk about MY third one, not YOUR third one.

I'm completely fine with that example.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

To me {wejDIch} isn't a thing that can be owned by someone, it's simply a way to count things in a list. Putting a possessive on it just seems strange to my mind.

Imagine a situation in which a Romulan challenges me to a duel. It's an honor thing, so naturally, I accept, but I hold the Romulan in such contempt that instead of asking someone like you to serve as my second, I instead assign that role to my pet mugato. Would I not describe the mugato as *cha'DIchwIj*?

On 10/4/2017 2:33 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com <mailto:klingonguy@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net <mailto:qurgh@wizage.net>> wrote:

To me {wejDIch} isn't a thing that can be owned by someone, it's simply a way to count things in a list. Putting a possessive on it just seems strange to my mind.

Imagine a situation in which a Romulan challenges me to a duel. It's an honor thing, so naturally, I accept, but I hold the Romulan in such contempt that instead of asking someone like you to serve as my second, I instead assign that role to my pet mugato. Would I not describe the mugato as *cha'DIchwIj*?

A {cha'DIch} in that context is a special title for a specific role though, it's not just counting something.

It doesn't have to be. Since numbers can act like nouns... *DujmeywIj tIHo'! HoSghaj wa'DIchwIj. 'IH cha'DIchwIj. veQ Duj 'oH wejDIchwIj'e'. * -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 10/4/2017 4:33 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:39 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

On 10/4/2017 2:33 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com <mailto:klingonguy@gmail.com>> wrote:

Imagine a situation in which a Romulan challenges me to a duel. It's an honor thing, so naturally, I accept, but I hold the Romulan in such contempt that instead of asking someone like you to serve as my second, I instead assign that role to my pet mugato. Would I not describe the mugato as *cha'DIchwIj*?

A {cha'DIch} in that context is a special title for a specific role though, it's not just counting something.

It doesn't have to be. Since numbers can act like nouns

That was my point, yes.

I was just addressing the question about whether proper nouns or titles might get special treatment. We've seen *cha'DIch* used as an apparently special title, so I presented a few that couldn't be interpreted as titles or nouns. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

SuStel: My primary disagreement with you in this thread was this: I thought you were applying an overly-strict, technical definition to Okrand's use of the term "indirect direct" that was not implied or justified by the text. I don't doubt that there is a linguistic distinction between benefactives and recipients that can be useful in understanding grammars. But my position was that TKD and Okrand's other writings are not written at a strictly technical level, and are geared more towards a less formal, more "English 101" understanding of English grammar. For instance, he has said he wrote the pronunciation section to be non-technical. As a result, TKD may contain simplifications of grammar terms, like how a biology 101 text might give a simple definition of "species" that doesn't include various technical nuances and debates but is still useful for introductory purposes. My assertion was that at this non-technical level of English grammar discussion, the term "indirect object" is usually taken to include the notion of beneficiaries, and that this is Okrand's intended reading of the term. (From my viewpoint, it felt like if an entomologist were arguing that *ghew* can only apply to hemipterans and lice because of the more specific definitions of the glosses "bug" and "cootie".) I was using my own recollections of high school and college English as a proxy for how the average layperson might think about and interpret notions of "indirect objects". However, after this discussion, I looked up some online grammar resources, and my recollections were not entirely correct. You were correct that the notion of indirect objects only applies to transitive verbs, and that a sentence like *jIHvaD qab Sojvam* does not contain an indirect object. I was incorrect that "indirect object" could be taken as a synonym for all *-vaD* nouns. I should not have dug in my heels so deeply on it.* vIttlhegh vIqawnIS: QaghmeylIj tIchID, yIyoH.* *reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'.* (I am still curious if you can use the prefix trick on stative or intransitive verbs, even if the *-vaD* noun is not a literal indirect object. It would require a slight retcon of the prefix trick definition, but I think it would make Klingon a little bit weirder and more different from English. It is an alien language, after all. But I admit it's unlikely.) That said, though, I also found support for my argument that "indirect object" can be understood to include a beneficiary, at least when speaking in less technical sense. For instance: "The indirect object is characteristically associated with the semantic role of recipient, as in these examples. But it may have the role of beneficiary (the one for whom something is done), as in *Do me a favour* or *Call me a taxi*, and it may be interpreted in other ways, as seen from examples like *This blunder cost us the match*, or *I envy you your good fortune*." (A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, by Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, 2005, read here <https://books.google.com/books?id=qlxDqB4ldx4C&lpg=PA72&ots=WRBJcXcrs4&pg=PA72#v=onepage&f=false>) There are also dictionary definitions that include the notion of a beneficiary: "an object that is used with a transitive verb to indicate who benefits from an action or gets something as a result", or "a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase indicating the recipient or beneficiary of the action of a verb and its direct object" (both from here <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/indirect-object>), and so on. I also found several grammar references intended for non-technical English speakers that describe the direct object as receiving the action of the verb (one <https://www.troy.edu/writingcenter/assets/documents/grammar/GrammarReview.pdf> , two <http://www.dailygrammar.com/Lesson-146-Noun-Pronoun-Review.htm>, three <http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/verbs/transitive-verbs.html>, and more; some sources also describe the subject in passive voice as receiving the action, such as this <https://www.uwb.edu/getattachment/wacc/resources/handouts/handoutactivepassive-1.pdf>). This was Okrand's definition of an object, which you took issue with. To me, this is further evidence that he was writing to a lay audience in TKDa, not an audience familiar with specific linguistic distinctions or definitions.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

Similarly, when -*logh* is attached to *Hoch* (*all*), the resulting word, *Hochlogh* (*all times*), is used in the same way as *reH* (*always*), as in *Hochlogh no' yIquvmoH* (*All times honor your ancestors*...); compare * reH no' yIquvmoH* (*Always honor your ancestors*).

One thing I noticed when reading the paq'batlh: it seems that *Hochlogh* instead of *reH *was used to translate the idea of "forever" or "for eternity". I don't have the book handy right now to double-check this idea more thoroughly, though.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <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. (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 think the prefix trick works because Klingon prefixes must agree with the "object" of the verb, not necessarily only the "direct object." In certain cases where it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed with, the prefix can agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object. It's not that prefixes can agree with any object they like, direct or indirect; it's just that under certain circumstances the prefix can be reassigned to do different work than it usually does.

That's why my examples have explicitly third-person direct objects (or, in the case of *muqab**, a stative verb that can't have a direct object at all), so that it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed with. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:14 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/4/2017 12:00 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:58 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It is highly unlikely, that a mere mortal -i.e. someone who isn't a friend of maltz-, would ask and his question would be answered..

However, since even us -the little people-, are allowed to dream, I would like to ask that these questions are eventually clarified at the qepHom to come..

1. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if both nouns joined by it are singular. 2. the prefix of a verb, which follows {joq}, if one of the nouns is plural. 3. the {ngIq}. 4. the {vabDot} (although I'm not quite certain, that the clarification needed here, is with regards to the grammar, or its meaning). 5. {Duj wejwIjDIch} or {DujwIj wejDIch} ? 6. Can we have two {qu'} or two {be'} on the same word ?

I have a question of my own I'd like to ask: how far does the prefix trick stretch? Can it only be used with some verbs or some meanings of *-vaD*? Or is any use of *-vaD* eligible (provided all the relevant nouns are in the correct person)? For instance, do these work: *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang* -> *bangwI', wa'SaD SuvwI' qaHoHqang **"My love, I'd kill a thousand warriors for you."* *jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh* -> *DuSaQwIj Deq muqawmoH qachvetlh* *"That building reminds me of my old school."* *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* -> *muqab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* *"Too much Terran food is bad for me."* (*chaq DaH jIwoghpu'...*)

These are questions I brought up when the prefix trick was first explained to us (I was not a fan, and I still think it was Okrand's way of covering sloppy translations from English). 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.*

I think the prefix trick works because Klingon prefixes must agree with the "object" of the verb, not necessarily only the "direct object." In certain cases where it is clear that a direct object is not being agreed with, the prefix can agree with an otherwise unstated indirect object. It's not that prefixes can agree with any object they like, direct or indirect; it's just that under certain circumstances the prefix can be reassigned to do different work than it usually does.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

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.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

No. In *jIHvaD qab,* nothing has happened to you. The subject of *qab* has had a quality described, but it has not acted upon you in any way. Here *jIH* is a benefactive, not an indirect object.

Nothing has happened to you (plural) when I *Sa'ang* my heart either, except possibly that I have caused photons of certain wavelengths to enter your eyes. I'll grant that "prefix trick with stative verbs" is the least likely to be acceptable out of my three examples.

Meanwhile, TKD doesn't mention indirect objects or an indirect object meaning of *-vaD* until the second edition and the Addendum is published with it. Here it tells us, not that since *-vaD* means "indirect object" that we should use it for indirect objects; it's prescribing for us a new rule: you can signal an indirect object by slapping a *-vaD* on it, because Klingons consider the recipient of an action someone whom the action is *intended for. *This was not deducible prior to the second edition TKD and the canon that led to it

I am skeptical that using *-vaD* for the recipient of an action was not deducible prior to the addendum being published. Both of the examples in TKDa can be interpreted even when translating *-vaD* as a beneficiary marker. Was there actually some Usenet discussion in the intervening years where* -vaD* as an indirect object marker was considered too controversial to use? Or where the topic of indirect objects came up and nobody thought of *-vaD*? To me, that section reads more like a clarification on how existing Klingon grammar is used to express a common bit of English syntax, described using English grammar terms, rather than describing an entirely new use or meaning of the suffix. (Similar to how Okrand described *tlhej* as being used to translate the idea of "with", without implying some kind of distinction between *tlhej* when it's used to translate "with" vs. when it's not.) The varying ways in which Okrand has described using *-vaD* over the years (as an "indirect object" or not) seem more like casual inconsistency in terminology rather than hints at some deeper underlying semantic distinction.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Yes it has: you have seen. You received a visual image or a presentation. Linguistically, this is receiving something, which is something happening to you.

"Something happening to you" is a very broad definition of a recipient or indirect object. It would include most kinds of objects, probably a few subjects too, and also the *-vaD* nouns in my examples: *bangwI', SoHvaD wa'SaD SuvwI' vIHoHqang* - Some presentation or demonstration of love and devotion is happening to my beloved. My beloved is receiving a presentation that involves killing a thousand warriors. *jIHvaD DuSaQwIj Deq qawmoH qachvetlh* - Remembrance is happening to me. I am receiving some kind of sensory stimulus that causes me to remember. *jIHvaD qab tera'ngan Soj 'Iq* - I admit that using the prefix trick with a stative verb might be too much of a stretch. But even in this case, some bad thing is happening to me (or would happen to me, or generally happens to me, or happens to me over time) as a result of too much Terran food. I am receiving some kind of badness from that food - indigestion, cholesterol, disdain from my Klingon peers, etc. Benefactives are about the verb being for someone; indirect objects are

about the direct object being for someone.

I think you might be trying too hard to define a distinction you haven't shown to exist. English grammar doesn't make these fine-grained distinctions between what is and isn't an indirect object. Every English class I've had would argue that "you" in "I do something for you" and "Too much food is bad for you" are both indirect objects. There may be a distinction in higher-level linguistics that says otherwise, but that's not the level of technicality that Okrand uses to talk about Klingon in general or about indirect objects in specific. I don't see why his use of the English term "indirect object" when talking about the prefix trick must necessarily exclude benefactives as you've defined them. I found an example from KGT where Okrand uses the term "indirect object" in a situation where the verb is for someone, not the direct object:

The verb *QIj* ("explain") is a standard term somewhat close to this in meaning, though the object of *QIj* is that which is explained, while the person to whom the explanation is given is the indirect object: *yaSvaD nab QIj* ("He/she explains the plan to the officer"; *yaSvaD*, "for the officer"; *nab*, "plan"). *(KGT, p. 149)*

The plan isn't necessarily for the officer, but the explaining is. (Also, the gloss of *yaSvaD* is "*for* the officer", which suggests that "indirect object" can be used to refer to the benefactive meaning originally described for *-vaD*.) My guess is that he started using "indirect object" as a simple way to refer to nouns with *-vaD*, in the same way one might refer to a noun with *-Daq* as a locative noun instead of saying "noun with *-Daq*" over and over.

That's just an issue of techniques of translation, not the meaning of morphemes or semantics or syntax. My talk of *-vaD* has to do with purely Klingon grammar, without discussing translations into other languages.

My argument is that, until Okrand says otherwise, the two uses of *-vaD* you've talked about are ultimately the same, and that the apparent distinction between "benefactive" *-vaD* and "indirect object" *-vaD* is an artifact of how two distinct kinds of English phrasing are translated using the same suffix. (In the same way that phrases using "with" and phrases about accompanying that don't use "with" can both be translated using *tlhej*, which is the analogy I was going for.) But he has only used the prefix trick for indirect objects and never for

benefactives.

Aside from my assertion that there's no real difference between those two things, he hasn't used the prefix trick very often at all, even in cases where it would probably not be controversial to do so. I found two such cases in a quick browse of the paq'batlh: *tlhIHvaD SuvwI'pu'vam vIDelpu'* - paq'batlh, p. 133: paq'raD canto 12, line 2. (*Del* has not been used with the prefix trick before but the meaning is similar to how indirect objects are used with *jatlh* - a description is being given to you all, you all are receiving a description.) *SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh* - paq'batlh, p. 147: paq'raD canto 16, line 25. (*qem* is one of the verbs used in the original description of indirect objects in TKDa.* SoHvaD* in this sentence has the role that is explicitly described as the indirect object in that example. The prefix trick could be used, but it is not.)

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of asking him for further clarification of *-vaD* and the prefix trick; I'm not saying there's nothing to learn here. I don't *know* that you can't say *muqab* instead of *jIHvaD qab;*

Are you arguing just against the use of the prefix trick with stative verbs and the idea that *-vaD* counts as an indirect object with such verbs? Or do you disagree that any of my three examples have indirect objects that can be used with the prefix trick, including the idea of "I do something for you" and that thing you do when using *-moH* on transitive verbs?

Well, English treats targets of speeches or visions as if they had been handed a package. Whether Klingon does the same is a fair question, which this example might be confirmation of.

The article on the prefix trick already describes the target of speeches as an indirect object (which, in your terminology, is analogous to being handed a package):

*The indirect object of jatlh, when expressed, is the hearer/listener. Thus:[...]qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh "you make a speech to the prisoners" (qama'pu'vaD "for the prisoners," SoQ "speech, lecture, address," Dajatlh "you speak it")*

http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29b-news.txt>

I think you're getting confused by the English translations. It doesn't matter whether something is translated with *to* or *for;* it's the concept that counts. Is there an inherent difference in concept between the *-vaD* in *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam* and *yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'*? I think there is, and the concept exists in linguistic studies, and Okrand went out of his way to introduce the difference in the addendum.

They are different concepts (the nature of the benefit is more abstract and potential in the case of *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam*, for instance), but I don't think the concepts are so different that they can't be included under the same usage of *-vaD*. The mission benefits (or will benefit) in some way from the usefulness of this information, and the officer benefits in some way from the prisoner giving a knife. Context, like the use of the verb *nob*, suggests that in the latter case the likely benefit is that the officer physically receives a knife. When Okrand said "the indirect object can be considered the beneficiary", I don't think his phrasing was intended to highlight a linguistic distinction. Rather, I think he was trying to explain the idea to an audience with a casual knowledge of grammar by highlighting an alternate way to think about the term "indirect object". In other words, I think it was more like "So, you've heard of indirect objects, but are wondering how to express that idea in Klingon? If you think about it, indirect objects are benefiting from the verb. So you can use the suffix I described earlier for marking a beneficiary to express the same basic idea." It's like if he talked about using *tlhej* for "with" by saying "the object of 'with' can be considered the accompanier".

*yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'* can theoretically mean either (a) the prisoner handed the officer a knife, or (b) the prisoner handed *someone else* a knife for the officer's sake. These are different concepts. This is the difference I am pointing to. You're most likely to interpret it as (a) an indirect object, but given the right context you could interpret it as (b) a benefactive.

That's true that it's potentially ambiguous, but again, I don't think there's a reason to necessarily assume that those different usages interact with grammar rules in a different way. (Specifically, the grammar rules describing when one can perform the prefix trick.) For instance, TKD says that *-Daq* can often be translated using "to, in, at, on". These are linguistically different concepts, and there are languages like Finnish that distinguish between those various meanings, with various locative cases like the adessive ("on") and inessive ("in") and illative ("into") and all the rest. And Klingon does use the pronomial prefixes to distinguish between "motion to an area" and "doing something at an area". But Klingon doesn't grammatically distinguish between "on the table" and "in the table". If I have a table with a drawer in it, *raSDaq jInejpu' **"I have looked (for something) in/on the table"* is potentially ambiguous in a way that can be linguistically relevant (adessive vs. inessive) but not grammatically relevant. The same suffixes and prefixes are used with both meanings. Only additional words (or familiarity with my tables) can clear up the ambiguity. Likewise, with *-vaD*, there is a linguistic distinction that can be made between "the officer benefits in a sort of vague way from the prisoner giving the knife" and "the officer actually receives a knife from the prisoner giving it". But I don't think we can say yet that this is a grammatical distinction in Klingon. Okrand doesn't often talk about or use the prefix trick, which is the one known element of Klingon grammar where the distinction might matter. And I think his use of the term "indirect object" mostly just represents a change in how he describes the *-vaD* suffix, rather than making a distinction from the original description as a beneficiary marker.

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? 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. (Also, to clarify: I just now realized that part of the confusion might be because I'm using "my beloved" to refer to the *SoH* in *SoHvaD*. Since my beloved is the one being addressed, *SoH* and *bangwI'* would refer to the same person, but the semantic identity doesn't mean they're grammatically in the same role. I do understand that the actual noun *bangwI'* is grammatically a term of address and not even potentially an indirect object. *HIvqa' veqlargh.*)

*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*.

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, which suggests that either he's completely forgotten about the idea that* -vaD* nouns can be beneficiaries, or that he is using the term "indirect object" in the non-technical English-class-level sense that includes beneficiaries. The latter makes much more sense to me.

But why? Why would he add to the Addendum a whole section unto itself called "Indirect Objects" if these were just a new name for the familiar *-vaD*? There are sooo many areas that are left vague in TKD, and this is the only one he thought he'd just give a couple of examples, to be helpful? Every single other section of the Addendum adds something new, something previously unknown or not explained correctly. In this one section he's going to elaborate on something he'd already explained, but maybe you didn't notice all the possibilities because he didn't use a particular phrase? Really?

Why not? You said so yourself: "The Addendum is all about new stuff that got added *or clarified* since the first edition." If it had occured to him after TKD was written that he wanted to clarify or define this more precisely, where else would he put it? I don't think the section labeling of the addendum is intended as a strict arrangement of linguistic concepts. 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 that is not obviously addressed in the first edition of TKD, 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. 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. So I've revised my questions to be more specific about the issues brought up here, and hopefully they can be run by Maltz at some point: 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? 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? 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? (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"?

On 10/5/2017 5:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto: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 Trek/s 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