tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 25 10:47:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -vaD
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -vaD
- Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:05:05 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: KLBC: -vaD
>>Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:30:01 -0800 (PST)
>>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"
I suggested this very thing to charghwI' and DaQtIq during qep'a' loSDIch, I
got a round of sour looks. I've come to agree: the load is too much. We
KNOW that it can mean speaking "to" a person, if "on their behalf" is also
allowed (generally) it would be very ambiguous. I'm not suggesting that
such a meaning is not allowed. You'd just need a very clear context to be
able to interpret it that way.
SuStel
Stardate 97982.9