tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 03 17:34:06 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:59:51 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <001501bfdd72$291c6440$798301d5@tinypc>
ja' charghwI':
>I think you are fixating on the idea of {-vaD} marking the benefactor of an
>action. While this is true, it is also true that in the Addendum on page 180
>of TKD, section 6.8, Okrand has expanded {-vaD}'s function to basically be a
>marker for an indirect object.
"While the object of the verb is the recipient of the action, the indirect
object may be considered the beneficiary." (TKD 6.8, page 180)
I don't think this should be interpreted as saying that *all* indirect
objects *must* be considered the beneficiary. Note that the sentences used
as examples employ English verbs which are used in a slightly
"ditransitive" sense:
"The prisoner gave the officer the knife"
"The officer brings them food"
Another relevant example from Skybox S27, {Qo'noS} "Klingon Homeworld":
{roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH.}
These are all definitely the kind of indirect object that is naturally the
beneficiary of the action.
Perhaps marginally relevant is Skybox S20, {Ha'quj} "Klingon Sash":
{ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.}
There's no "to" or "for" in a smooth English rendition of this sentence.
"It reminds him of his heritage." The "of" is essentially part of the verb
{qawmoH}, which can be translated "cause [someone] to remember
(something)", or "remind [someone] (of something)".
>A lot of nouns are indirect objects that
>might not be considered the "benefactor" of the action.
I'm not clear on what those non-beneficiary nouns might be. "Indirect
object" does not mean "something other than object". It seems to me that
the brief paragraph in the Addendum merely clarifies that {-vaD} is the
appropriate suffix to use when the indirect object *is* the beneficiare of
the action.
>This is why I consider the target of an action, when the verb does not
>typically have a target as its direct object, to be appropriate for {-vaD}.
Since I do not see the target of "pointing" or "aiming" to be a beneficiary
of the pointing, I don't consider {-vaD} to be appropriate. Contrariwise,
I definitely consider the *locative* concept to be absolutely correct for
both targets and destinations.
Yes, there are times when a destination coincides with a "beneficiary". If
I fire a phaser blast at a target, the target is certainly affected by the
action. But in the general case of pointing in a direction, I firmly
believe that the *direction* idea is the primary one, and for that I will
continue to promote {-Daq}.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh