tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 25 09:17:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -vaD
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -vaD
- Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:17:55 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>(message from Steven Boozer on Wed, 24 Dec 1997 13:06:17 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 13:06:17 -0800 (PST)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>: From: [email protected] (Scott D. Randel):
>: >Can the N-5 suffix -vaD ("for, intended for") be used to mean "on
>: >behalf of," as the English "for" can? As an example, Dr. Seuss's
>: >Lorax would say "I speak for the trees." Would {SormeyvaD vIjatlh}
>: >mean the same thing?
>:
>: Oooh! Intriguing. Something about that sounds somewhat nice to me. But I
>: don't think I want to go there. It's a little too much load to compete
>: with the far more common "I speak to the trees"; the "represent" meaning
>: simply would be selected against through disuse, and would have to be
>: represented, as I think charghwI' suggested, with 'oS.
>:
>: ~mark
>
> "This suffix indicates that the noun to which it is attached is in some
>way the
> beneficiary of the action, the person or thing for whom or for which the
>activity
> occurs. {Qu'vaD lI' De'vam} `This information is useful for the mission.'
>The noun
> {Qu'vaD} means `for the mission', and in this sentence {-vaD} indicates
>that the
> information is intended to be used somehow for the mission under
>discussion." (TKD:28f)
>
>Hmm... "in some way the beneficiary..." Nicely ambiguous. I think Scott's on
>to something. Marking the indirect object is just one of its uses:
Like I said, there's something to be said for it. But charghwI' is right,
that it likely won't work, and that XvaD jatlh will certainly mean "speak
to X." Even if "for the benefit of" works logically, the fact is that
"speak to" is simply so much more common and useful that that meaning will
override the other and when you hear the expression you'll be highly
unlikely to think "speak for" instead of "speak to." Therefore, another
expression will wind up getting used for "speak for" since "XvaD jatlh"
will be selected against in use.
~mark