tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 05 20:07:39 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (KLBC) waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: (KLBC) waqmey lutuQ verenganpu'
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 23:07:58 -0500
>}I *do* see a reason for this not to work. I'm not sure {nep} can or should
>}be used as a verb of saying, and I don't think {-vaD} makes sense to indicate
>}the person being lied to. "I lie for your benefit" sounds like I'm covering
>}for you, not deceiving you.
>
>I can't agree with you there. The grammatical beneficiary of an action does
>not necessarily benefit from it. {SoHvaD joch Sojvam}. The beneficiary
>receives some result of the action, beneficial or otherwise.
MO should have written a better definition for -vaD. Think of it more as
[to] instead of [for].
SoHvaD taj vInob I gave the knife [to] you
instead of I gave the knife [for] you
"I lie for your benefit" in the sense that I'm covering for you could be
[qaQanmeH jInep] or [qaQaHmeH jInep] (or something similar)
(when I started writing this post I was on the other side of the argument,
thinking [-vaD] would be [-for] them instead of [-to] them. Upon looking up
information to use, I answered my own questions. The problem with
understanding [-vaD] is just because of the words which MO chose to use.)
DloraH
www2.rpa.net/~cheesbro
(last updated: 31 Dec 97)