tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 05 01:06:31 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 8:00 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
>
>
> 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)

It seems that you have recalled the part of that section that serves your
purposes while ignoring the part of much greater significance. Yes, we could
read this to believe the indirect object MAY be considered the beneficiary
(or maybe not), but just below that, please find:

"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
maybe attached to either a noun or a pronoun."

Note that it doesn't say, "... the beneficiary preceeds the object and is
suffixed..." It says, "... the indirect object preceeds the object and is
suffixed..."

Now, rereading the part you quoted in THAT context, it sounds more like
"[While you might not naturally find this to be the case] the indirect
object [for the sake of grammar] may be considered the beneficiary." It
would be fairly silly to point out the obvious that sometimes an indirect
object might be considered a beneficiary. We already know from the original
section in the grammar of TKD that {-vaD} represents the beneficiary.
There's no reason to redundantly put this in the Addendum.

No. He is giving us new information here. He's telling us that while {-vaD}
is used for the beneficiary, as we were told in the original edition of TKD,
it additionally is used for the indirect object of a verb.

> I don't think this should be interpreted as saying that *all* indirect
> objects *must* be considered the beneficiary.

If that's not the case, why bother the redundant entry in the Addendum? Can
you either answer that question or point out some other uselessly redundant
entry in the Addendum of TKD? Are you arguing that this is the single
example of a uselessly redundant entry of a grammatical section in the
Addendum of TKD?

> 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"

I do notice this, but I don't see how that affects your point.

> 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.

So, are you suggesting that before this new rule in the Addendum, we should
use {-vaD} only for beneficiaries that are NOT indirect objects, and the new
rule opens the door to using {-vaD} on beneficiaries that are also the
Indirect Object? I don't think so.

> Perhaps marginally relevant is Skybox S20, {Ha'quj} "Klingon Sash":
>
> {ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH.}

Ahh, yes. One of our favorite canon examples to argue about. I'm surprised
you brought it up, since it is an example I like and you hate.

> 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)".

Meanwhile, you can argue that it is the indirect object.

> >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.

But again, are you suggesting that somehow by being the indirect object,
without this clarification we would NOT have put {-vaD} on a beneficiary? I
think you have some explaining to do.

> >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.

The simple truth is that this can vary from verb to verb. Proper use of a
verb involves an understanding of how various nouns can fit into the roles
of "oblique" nouns (including direct object, as "oblique" noun is defined in
my Concise Oxford Dictionary). When you point, is the target a locative or
an indirect object or a direct object? Well, it just depends on which is
considered to be right for a specific verb.

It's like the difference between ja' and jatlh or between qang and lIch or
between ghel or thob. There is no logical rule that will dictate what is
right. You simply have to memorize how these words work around each verb.

I thought {Dub} would not take a direct object. I was wrong. Krankor thought
that {vIH} took a direct object. He was wrong. I thought {jaH} would not
take a direct object. I was wrong.

We can guess the best we can, but we can't declare any one answer to be
right with any authority without any canon backing.

> 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}.

Simply realize that in doing so with such certainty, you may very well
eventually find canon that works differently from your preference.

> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

charghwI'



Back to archive top level