tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 21:25:28 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Must
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Must
- Date: Thu, 1 May 97 04:22:11 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Q'ISt'ova (Eliseo d'Annunzio, Esq.) wrote:
> jatlh qoror:
> > Just thought I'd throw in my own thought ... "must" doesn't always
correlate
> > with "need to" exactly. "Need to" seems to imply that for the person's
> > well-being, the person needs to die. "Must," in this context, doesn't
mean
> > that -- in fact, it seems to imply that for the -speaker-'s well-being,
the
> > person needs to die.
> > So, the best translation of that would be, I think, "yIHegh."
>
> I can't put my finger on the -suffix but I know it has something to do
> with beneficiary for benefactor of a certain action.
Sounds like you mean {-vaD}. TKD 3.3.5.
> Perhaps something on
> the structure of "personal prefix (You) - verb "die" - suffix "need" -
> suffixes "beneficiary to ____" If you understand... If we are dealing on
> the "must" concept as being for the well being of others than that of the
> person in question... it should be translated roughly as "You need to die
> for ____"
qoror is right: for this idea, the *best* translation would just be "Die!" If
you're being elaborate, you might expand this to {bIHegh 'e' vIpoQ} "I require
you to die."
If we use {-vaD}, we get something very different. Let's see, an example:
SoHvaD jIHegh
I will die for you. (I will die, and you are the beneficiary of this action.)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97331.1