[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}

[Will Martin]

Hi,

I apologize for frustrating so many of you recently over the topic of adding {-moH} to verbs that can take direct objects (heaven forbid we use the word “transitive”).

Trust that I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’m honestly frustrated with what seems to be uncharacteristic inconsistency in this area of Klingon grammar.

I’m trying to find the root of the problem. It occurs to me that it seems to center itself around the suffix {-vaD}. It’s one of the Type 5 noun suffixes. All of the OTHER Type 5 noun suffixes tell you what the noun is doing grammatically in the sentence. They explain the relationship between that noun and the action of the verb. I’ve tended to think that in this functionality, {-vaD} is just like the other Type 5 suffixes.

But now arguments are being made that {-vaD} is optionally applied to a type of object of the verb. In other words, there is no direct or indirect object. There are just “objects”. An unmarked noun preceding the verb is that verb’s “object”. It might be a direct object. It might be an indirect object. The Klingon language appears to not distinguish between the two.

So, that’s my problem. It always SEEMED to distinguish between the two, until recently.

So, then, I begin to wonder what {-vaD} is for. If it is optional, why bother with it at all?

I suppose the suggestion is that it’s like the plural suffix. If there are other clues that a noun is plural, you don’t need to put the plural suffix on it. So, in a similar way, if there are other clues that an object is an indirect object, it doesn’t need {-vaD}, but if there are TWO objects to a verb, and one of them is direct and the other is indirect, then you mark the indirect object with {-vaD}.

I could see that, except that, of course, Okrand doesn’t say that anywhere in TKD, or in the Addendum, or in any of the other places he has discussed grammar. Why would he explicitly explain that characteristic for plurals, and not for indirect objects?

I’m sure that someone will have an objection to me using the term “indirect object” instead of “beneficiary”. Fine. Have problems. We both know what I’m talking about. Talk about what I’m talking about instead of distracting the conversation by arguing about the right term to use. That kind of distraction does not impress me as an effective debate tactic. It avoids the meat of the matter.

It’s even more worrisome because with plural suffixes, it’s never wrong to explicitly use the plural suffix when it would normally be omitted, but in arguments here, it seems to be the case that it IS wrong to use {-vaD} in {pa’vaD tujmoH qul}, because somehow the room can’t be interpreted as the beneficiary of being heated, though Worf CAN be interpreted as the beneficiary of being taught.

And in {wo’rIvvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH} it’s mysteriously right to add {-vaD} to {wo’rIv}, though it’s mysteriously wrong to add it if I just say {wo’rIvvaD vIghojmoH}.

See my problem? The inconsistency of it stretches far beyond a simple lack of explicit, detailed explanation of the grammar. If this was supposed to be this weird, Okrand should have explicitly explained this to us a long time ago.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151123/e8e97a73/attachment-0001.html>