tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 18 07:39:18 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: works for me
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: works for me
- Date: Thu, 18 May 95 10:39:15 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at May 18, 95 9:49 am
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
...
> The only difficulty I have with "jIHvaD Qap" is a niggling doubt that maybe
> this is a stretch of -vaD. After all, the implication is not that it works
> for my benefit, or with me as recipient, but only that it works *as
> observed* by me. Is this really a legitimate use of -vaD? Maybe. But
> maybe not. What do you think?
>
> ~mark
My intended meaning when I wrote it was that it works for my
benefit. It works, by my perspective. If it didn't work for my
benefit, I would not care enough about it to approve it and
instead would say, {jISaHbe'}.
A middle-road alternative would be {Qap 'e' vIHar}. Lately,
I've been seeing a lot of {'e' vIQub}s and I tend to prefer
{Har} because {Qub} strikes me as a word better left
intransitive most of the time. The way we use "think" in
English is perhaps a somewhat idiomatic, mindless replacement
for the word "believe".
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |