[Tlhingan-hol] {-vaD}

[SuStel]

On 11/23/2015 2:54 PM, Will Martin wrote:

> 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.

bItlhIj 'e' vIlaj 'ej jItlhIj jImoghchoHpu'mo'.

> 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.

The "just objects" are an explicit part of the structure of a Klingon
sentence. The object is the unmarked noun or noun phrase that goes in a
special space just before the verb.

Klingon does not have special markings for the ideas of "direct object" 
or "indirect object." There is no special placement for these either. 
Sentences like {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS} in paq'batlh show us 
that what in English might be the indirect object {loDnI'Daj vavDaj je} 
can go in the object position, while sentences like {chaHvaD lut ja'} 
show us they can go in the "before OVS" position. That latter sentence 
also shows us that what in English might be the direct object {lut} can 
ALSO go in the object position.

This shows that you cannot tell just what is a direct object and what is
an indirect object purely by their positions or their suffixes. They are
not indicated purely by syntax.

When you start to look at the meanings of the words you're using, 
however, certain patterns in canon become unmistakable. When {ja'} does 
not specify the thing being said, the person it is said to can be its 
object. When {ja'} specifies the thing being said and not the person it 
is said to, the thing said can be the object. When both are specified, 
the person it is said to becomes the beneficiary in the "before OVS" 
position, while the thing said becomes the object.

We've seen that verbs with {-moH} follow exactly the same pattern. When
such a verb specifies a person the action is done to or for, that person
can be the object. When the verb specifies the thing the action is done
on, that thing can be the object. When the verb specifies both the
person it is done to and the thing it is done on, the person it is done
to is made a beneficiary in the "before OVS" space, while the thing it
is done on is made the object.

So Klingon DOES distinguish between what English would call direct and 
indirect objects, but it does not do so in via syntax of the sentence. 
It does so by considering the meanings of the words. What in English 
would be an indirect object will be an object unless there is also what 
in English would be a direct object, in which case it will become a 
beneficiary in the "before OVS" space instead.

{-vaD} is not an optional way to specify an indirect object; it 
specifies a beneficiary, as always. But it is not needed when the 
beneficiary can logically be placed in the object position. If the 
object position is already filled by the thing the verb operates on, and 
if the verb prefix cannot be used to specify a first- or second-person 
entity, then the entity to or for whom the action occurs is specified as 
a beneficiary.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name