On 11/2/2021 2:01 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 02.11.2021 um 04:57 schrieb Scott D. Randel:

...

I have asked several people where they learned that meaning, and all they could tell me was that they read or heard that definition long ago. TKD does not use that wording. Does anybody here translate it this way, and if so, do you know where you learned that definition?

I guess it is derived from the word benificiary, which TKD really uses.

“This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is attached is in some way the beneficiary of the action, the person or thing for whom or for which the activity occurs.”

I'm not sure if there is a difference between "beneficiary of" and "benefit of".

And in that quotation is a definition of the word. A beneficiary is a person or thing that receives a benefit. *Qu'vaD lI' De'vam*/This information is useful for the mission./ The mission receives the benefit of the information's usefulness. *SoSDajvaD HaDqu' be'Hom*/The girl studies hard for her mother./ The mother receives the benefit of knowing the girl is trying to do well in her studies. *qama'vaD taj nob 'avwI'*/The guard gives the prisoner a knife./ The prisoner receives the benefit of possessing an object. This particular use also maps onto the concept of indirect object, and is described in the addendum to TKD as thus. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

I believe that the consensus formed over time that {-vaD} refers to both entities that are common-sense beneficiaries and grammatical beneficiaries, A.K.A indirect objects. This is similar to the way that {-‘e’} marks either focus or topic. You can either use a noun with {-‘e’} at the beginning of a sentence that has no other grammatical function in the sentence — it’s not the location or time stamp or direct object — and it announces the topic of the sentence; something you keep in mind while you read the sentence; a kind of restriction of context to this topic, or you can take a noun that already has another grammatical function in the sentence (like the subject or object of a Relative Clause, or the traditional “subject” position of a “to be” pronoun-used-as-verb) and it functions fine for focus. That’s why it can disambiguate a Relative Clause, even though that is not something the suffix may have originally been designed to handle. I may have just used the wrong term. I think there’s a third term that is sometimes used in the latter case… In any case, the point is that there are areas of Klingon grammar, like the use of {-vaD} or {-‘e’} that lack distinctions between cases that are commonly distinguished from one another by linguists analyzing the grammar of other languages.

On Nov 2, 2021, at 9:18 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 02.11.2021 um 14:13 schrieb SuStel:

...

And in that quotation is a definition of the word. A beneficiary is a person or thing that receives a benefit.

I believe I understand how it works, so this is a more general question for lurkers on this list:

Would this following make sense:

{SoSvaD loD qIp SuvwI'} "The warrior beats the man for the woman"

Means: The woman is the person for whom the activity occurs. The warrior beats the man, and the woman has the profit/benefit of it.

Right?

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 11/3/2021 11:37 PM, Scott D. Randel wrote:

Thank you for your comments.

However, I was not asking for an explanation of the definition, which I understand. I was asking if anybody could tell me where the definition “for the benefit of” originated, as TKD defines {-vaD} simply as “for, intended for.”

But it doesn't define *-vaD* simply as /for, intended for./ It defines it by saying, "This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is attached is in some way the beneficiary of the action, the person or thing for whom or for which the activity occurs." A beneficiary is someone who receives a benefit. The verb occurs for or to the benefit of the noun marked by *-vaD.*

*From:*tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] *On Behalf Of *SuStel *Sent:* Tuesday, November 2, 2021 6:14 AM *To:* tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org *Subject:* Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {-vaD} "for the benefit of"

On 11/2/2021 2:01 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 02.11.2021 um 04:57 schrieb Scott D. Randel:

I have asked several people where they learned that meaning, and all they could tell me was that they read or heard that definition long ago. TKD does not use that wording. Does anybody here translate it this way, and if so, do you know where you learned that definition?

I guess it is derived from the word benificiary, which TKD really uses.

“This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is attached is in some way the beneficiary of the action, the person or thing for whom or for which the activity occurs.”

I'm not sure if there is a difference between "beneficiary of" and "benefit of".

And in that quotation is a definition of the word. A beneficiary is a person or thing that receives a benefit.

*Qu'vaD lI' De'vam*/This information is useful for the mission./ The mission receives the benefit of the information's usefulness.

*SoSDajvaD HaDqu' be'Hom*/The girl studies hard for her mother./ The mother receives the benefit of knowing the girl is trying to do well in her studies.

*qama'vaD taj nob 'avwI'*/The guard gives the prisoner a knife./ The prisoner receives the benefit of possessing an object. This particular use also maps onto the concept of indirect object, and is described in the addendum to TKD as thus.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

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

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 04:44, Scott D. Randel <amavocet@comcast.net> wrote:

Also, the text you presented is not what I would call a definition. It is an explanation of the definition, which is given in TKD as “for, intended for.”

At this point, I'm not sure what would satisfy your request. AFAIK, {-vaD} is not *defined* anywhere as "for the benefit of". It's *explained* using the word "beneficiary", and sometimes people have paraphrased the definition as "for the benefit of". For example, {-Daq} is "defined" as just "locative" in TKD, but people have no problem paraphrasing it as "on, at, in". Or {-meH}, which is just "defined" as "for", is sometimes explained (or defined) as "for the purpose of" to distinguish it from the {-vaD} kind of "for". People do rephrase the definitions in TKD, because they're not exact, and sometimes defining or explaining them in another way is more clear.

I think that “for the benefit of” describes grammatical “benefit”, not benefit to the “recipient.” It says that the “noun” is the beneficiary, not that “someone” is the beneficiary.

What if I say {juHDajvaD yIHmey vInob} (I apologize if that sentence is poorly formed; I am a lowly Level 1)? Giving a Klingon tribbles for his house provides no benefit for the Klingon or his house.

This is explained in TKD section 6.8 "Indirect Objects": "While the object of the verb is the recipient of the action, the indirect object may be considered the beneficiary. In a Klingon sentence, the indirect object precedes the object and is suffixed with the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD} 'for, intended for.' The suffix may be attached to either a noun or a pronoun." The first example even uses the verb {nob}: {yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} "The prisoner gave the officer the knife". The recipient is the beneficiary of the giving, or in other words, the recipient "benefits" from the giving in the sense intended here, even if the given object is undesirable, like tribbles. {juHDajvaD yIHmey vInob} is exactly how you would say "I give tribbles to his/her home". The home is the recipient, or beneficiary, of the giving. This is what people mean when they say {-vaD} is "for the benefit of", not that the giving confers a benefit (some kind of advantage, gain, or positive outcome). (btw, {juH} refers to a home. If you mean "House" in the sense of a family/tribal/political unit, that's {tuq}. But that's tangential to the point of your example.) -- De'vID

We’ve all used {juH} for house on occasion, even Okrand: juH home (n) SuvwI' juHmey rur tachmey Bars resemble warriors' homes. CK juHwIjDaq Dochvetlh vItlhap I will take that to my home. PK naDev juHlIjDaq cha'logh jISopneSchugh vaj jIquv It would be an honor to eat twice here at your house, your Honor. PK But for the most part, “a house is not a home” (in the words of the song): juH qach house (n) (TNK) -- i.e. the “building/structure” {qach} Quj wa'DIch juH qachmey mebpa'mey je qa' raQmey chu' monmey chu' je Custom OUTPOSTS and CAPITALS replace original Houses and Hotels. MKE qeylIS Qaw' 'e' nIDmeH yerDaj weH molor 'ej juH qachDaj meQmoH Molor did not destroy Kahless by burning his house or ravaging his lands PB And to further confuse matters… qav’ap juH apartment (n) (qep’a’ 2021): This is for a house or an apartment of any size that is not owned by the occupant. For a dwelling within a larger building containing several such dwellings (regardless of ownership), it's common to just say {pa’mey} (or occasionally just {pa'}). The use of {pa’mey} works like {mebpa'mey} “hotel” – i.e. a collection of “guest rooms/quarters”. --Voragh "Good tea. Nice house." (Worf, TNG "The Survivors") _____________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of SCOTT RANDEL Also, I swear that one of these days, I will stop using {juH} to mean "house"! Really, I will. On 11/05/2021 2:55 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com<mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote: (btw, {juH} refers to a home. If you mean "House" in the sense of a family/tribal/political unit, that's {tuq}. But that's tangential to the point of your example.)

I suspect that De’vID is right. I thought that Okrand may have mentioned it in one of his many posts, articles and explanations. but when I searched all of my notes for the phrase I found nothing. --Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of De'vID Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 5:14 AM On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 04:58, Scott D. Randel wrote: Lately, I have heard people translating {-vaD} as “for the benefit of.” Lately? According to the mailing list archives, it's been used since (at least) 1996: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1996/May/msg00326.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1996/May/msg00326.html__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!q4aSCAUzBd1CCp3bmTKNxgxyoiFNeUHKn9KJ5gQpWWPwd7LyRES0W6uR873dEig8dsQ$> I suspect, as others have already noted, that it probably just comes from a rephrasing of the definition in TKD itself.