tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 27 23:07:35 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nuq bach?

Brent Kesler ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:20 PM, qa'vaj <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

There's nothing that rules out {-vaD}, but none of the examples from
TKD seem to support it either. In the Addendum, Okrand writes "While
the object of the verb is the recipient of the action, the indirect
object may be considered the beneficiary" (180). This reinforces the
description on page 28: "This suffix indicates that the noun to which
it is attached is in some way the *beneficiary* of the action, the
person or thing *for* whom or *for* which the activity occurs"
(emphasis added). Whenever Okrand describes the *semantics* of {-vaD},
he uses words like "for" and "beneficiary".

However, Okrand goes on to confuse us: "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}" (180).
He talks about {-vaD} as an indirect object marker, but it appears
that it obtains this status only through its role as a beneficiary
marker. And the examples he gives don't contradict this.

- {yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} <The prisoner gave the officer the knife>
- {chaHvaD Soj qem yaS} <The officer brings them food>

The officer benefits from the prisoner giving the knife. They benefit
from the officer bringing food.

This is why there's such strong resistance to using {-vaD}. Klingon
would be a lot simpler if {-vaD} marked any generic sort of indirect
object. But it doesn't look like that's how Okrand's describing it.
To really support the argument that {-vaD} can be used when the
indirect object is *harmed* by the action, as in {nISwI' bachpu' yaS},
 we need to find {-vaD} being used that way. I did a cursory look in
TKW, but found nothing (though I wasn't thorough).

That's part of the difficulty with studying Klingon. The reference
materials are written by a specialist for a general audience. If he
had written is for other linguists, it would probably be much more
precise on these points.

bI'reng

Back to archive top level