tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 22 07:19:14 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Ordering food

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:31:56 -0800 (PST) [email protected] 
wrote:

> In a message dated 12/18/1998 10:17:12 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> << wej nuvpu'vaD qagh vIneHbej
>  
>  The problem here is that either you've got a noun with a Type 5 suffix
>  modifying another noun (prohibited by TKD), or you're saying you're doing
>  the wanting for three people. >>
> 
> Looks like we'll be discussing the proper use of {-vaD}.  As I read TKD, I
> discover 
> {-vaD} is the syntactic marker of "indirect object."
> 
> I definitely want qagh "intended for" three people.
> 
> peHruS

The problem here, rightfully pointed out, is that you want "qagh 
intended for three people", as if it were a noun phrase. 
Meanwhile, {-vaD} doesn't attach its noun to another noun. It 
only attaches it to the main verb as indirect object.

When I say:

SoHvaD taj vInob.

I'm not saying, "I give an intended for your knife." I'm saying, 
"For you, I give a knife." The giving has {SoH} as indirect 
object.

In your case, you want to say, "I want intended for three people 
qagh." That doesn't work. It comes out as "For three people, I 
want qagh." That just sounds odd, because it sounds like the 
three people are the indirect object of your desire.

I could see two ways to clarify this. The first is concise but 
slightly ambiguous:

wej nuvpu' je'meH qagh yap vIneH.

"I want enough in-order-to-feed-three-people qagh."
"In order to feed three people, I want enough qagh."
"I don't yet want enough qagh to feed people."

or a less concise, but more explicitly clear:

qagh neH wej nuv. qaghvam vIDIlqang. HInob.

Now, there's NO ambiguity.

Meanwhile, if you want to say it according to common Klingon 
etiquette:

ghungmo' wej tlhInganpu', qagh yap chongevbe'chugh vaj bIHegh!

charghwI'

Back to archive top level