tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 24 23:07:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chu' mu'mey nuqDaq vItu'laH'a'
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:22:15 -0800
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>According to Garrett Michael Hayes:
>>
>> On 23 Jan 96 at 15:53, Alan Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > 'etlhqengwI' writes:
>> > >But how would I say something like... "Help me out. Show it to
>> > >him!", where "he" is the recipient of the action, but it is for *my*
>> > >benefit?
>> >
>> > I don't know about *you*, but I would say {choQaHmeH ghaHvaD 'oH yI'ang}.
>>
>> That works, but doesn't "-vaD" still carry the sense of doing the
>> showing "for" him, rather than just "to" him? Let me be clear - I
>> don't think we are talking about any great question of grammar here -
>> just an issue of tone.
>The action of "showing" is FOR him. The purpose of the showing
>for him is to help me. The tone seems quite correct. There are
>two actions here. The object of helping is me. The indirect
>object of showing is him. So what is the problem?
See also something in the addendum; I'm sure it mentions "give the knife to
the prisoner" as "qama'vaD taj yInob." Although I have the lexicon here, I
did not bring my actual paper TKD here to USENIX (horror!)
~mark