tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 01 17:36:37 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -vaD
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -vaD
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:35:37 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp04.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1243902938; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=OSYnn6OYI4qUuZdfxqk+aMqNgpA=; b=KALyDrMLCf+w9iZR1Adgxua3JrtcQ8SwiJhzoys5cXfx+h+ssvqfS9dxI6MQwLZI isaWo94mh8A8w5NmISzeUQ34+C2GlqicDMrrFbHnhQRgsoSWNlGrZJJbfLtiflID;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
The question we have to ask was when Okrand chose to use the word
"beneficiary" in TKD, was he writing it for linguists or for laymen?
There is a lot in TKD that comes closer to layman's terms than
linguists.
Doq
On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:26 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Doq wrote:
>
>> I can't ignore Okrand's use of the word "beneficiary".
>
> You don't need to ignore it, but perhaps you should modify your
> understanding of it as a colloquial term that must involve the
> betterment of what it applies to.
>
> As a grammatical term, "beneficiary" merely indicates a recipient
> (usually of an object or of information). The usual grammatical term
> for the idea is "indirect object". In case-marking languages, it
> gets the dative case. In English, it usually is preceded by the
> preposition "to" or "for", or can stand alone if it comes before the
> direct object. In Klingon, it gets the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD}.
>
> A Klingon sentence's "beneficiary" doesn't obviously have to end up
> improved by the sentence. {qama'vaD QIghpej lo' 'avwI') seems
> grammatically fine to me.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>