tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 27 22:22:05 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: nuq bach?

qa'vaj (darqang99@gmail.com)



On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On May 27, 2009, at 9:01 PM, qa'vaj wrote:
>
> > {-vaD} also marks the indirect object.
>
> I opine differently.  What I recall TKD's addendum saying is that the
> recipient of a gift may be considered the indirect object.  I do not
> consider someone being shot to be the same sort of thing.  In my
> mind, the target is a location, not a beneficiary.
>
>
FWIW

     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.

        {yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} <The prisoner gave the officer>
                              <the knife> ({yaS} <officer,> {taj}
                              <knife,> {nobpu'} <gave,> {qama'}
                              <prisoner>)
        {chaHvaD Soj qem yaS} <The officer brings them food>
                          ({chaH} <they,> {Soj} <food,> {qem}
                          <bring,> {yaS} <officer>)

I don't disagree that Klingon usage may be to refer to the target object of
{bach} by it's location - that is certainly supported by the canon Voragh
posted. But I don't see a grammatical argument (nor a semantic one) that
dismisses {-vaD}, in the sense of being obviously contradictory to the
descriptions in TKD.


-- 
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH






Back to archive top level