[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

On 11/24/2015 11:09 PM, Rohan Fenwick wrote:
> I hope I haven't been seeming like I've just ignored your comments on
> this matter, SuStel! I confess there was much of the initial parts of
> the discussion that I was just barely able to keep up with, never mind
> respond to.

Not at all. Not being a trained linguist, I haven't had the jargon I've 
been looking for to present my case, so it has surely been messy.

> There are some ways in which I'm not sure I agree with you
> in terms of just how absent the semantic distinction is - for instance,
> where does one draw the line between the semantic indirect object and
> the semantic benefactive? Does {-vaD} actually kind of cover two clearly
> distinct types of semantic ground? Because where {-vaD} marks a genuine
> benefactive, as in {Qu'vaD lI' De'vam} "this information is useful for
> the mission" (TKD p.28), I'd have real issues with promoting {Qu'} to
> direct object. But in terms of the causative construction, at least, wa'
> DoS wIqIpba'mo' jIQuchbej je jIH. {{:)

I don't think we have enough information to say whether {-vaD} as 
indirect object is completely distinct from {-vaD} as benefactive. As 
you say, you wouldn't say *{Qu' lI' De'vam}. But I could see someone 
making the case that {ghaHvaD taj vInob} COULD mean "I give the knife, 
for his benefit." Maybe I'm giving the knife to someone completely 
different because "he" wants me to. Or would the indirect object meaning 
block that interpretation? We don't know.

> taH:
>  > We get two more examples in paq'batlh:
>  > maHvaD lojmItmey tIpoSmoH
>  > Notice that it's not {lojmItmey ghopoSmoH}.
>
> Though that said, {lojmItmey ghopoSmoH} should hypothetically be
> possible here. One wonders whether having the prefix trick or not here
> would make a difference in register or emphasis, but that's a question
> for some other time.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that it wouldn't be possible, just noting that 
one doesn't HAVE to use the prefix trick if one doesn't want to.

The introduction to paq'batlh does warn us that the language used is not 
conversational but more formal, so we should also keep that in mind when 
considering stylistic choices.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/