tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 11:53:52 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
ja' charghwI':
>"While the object of a verb is the recipient of the action, the indirect
>object may be considered the beneficiary." I don't think he meant "may" as
>in, "maybe it can or maybe it can't be considered the beneficiary". I think
>he meant that you can assume that any indirect object can, for grammatical
>reasons, be considered the beneficiary.
I never argued otherwise. If I implied that I was interpreting "may" as
equivalent to "might", I apologize. I read it as "permission" to take any
indirect object and use it as the beneficiary with {-vaD}. But you seem to
keep insisting that it says indirect objects and beneficiaries are the same
thing, an interpretation with which I strongly disagree. There are other
varieties of beneficiaries. It's a subset relationship, not an equivalence.
>The rest of the paragraph certainly favors this interpretation:
>"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." None of this suggests that
>only indirect objects that ghunchu'wI' considers to be beneficiaries of the
>action will be qualified to use {-vaD}. If it is an indirect object, it gets
>{-vaD}.
I'm not disputing that indirect objects get rendered in Klingon with
{-vaD}. The core point I've been trying to make is that I don't see "the
stars" acting like an indirect object in the first place, and definitely
not as a beneficiary.
>The question then becomes, when you consider the verb, can it take an
>indirect object, and if it can, what noun can fulfill that function?
That's exactly the question that I've been answering. {pep} "raise"
doesn't strike me as the kind of verb that ever has an indirect object, and
if it did, I'd not expect it to be the (redundant) direction in which moves
the object.
>My suggestions have already been ignored, so I have been doing my best to
>ignore this whole thread, but I can't deal with seeing less experienced
>Klingonists told repeatedly that {-vaD} is only used for "beneficiaries"
>without having the term explained to include all indirect objects. When you
>do this, you leave them to think, "Hmmm. Beneficiaries. Okay, does the noun
>in question benefit from the action of the verb?" It is not that simple.
All indirect object certainly *are* beneficiaries. I myself quoted what
TKD's Addendum has to say about that. And once that bit of clarification
is made, I think it *is* that simple.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh