tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 02 05:40:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: yIHmey
SuStelvaD jang ghunchu'wI':
>>Actually, if {jang} counts as a verb of saying, and if it acts like {ja'},
>>then {mujang charghwI'} may very well be just as correct as {jIHvaD jang
>>charghwI'}. Certainly the latter works: "charghwI' answers, I am the
>>beneficiary of this action."
>
>I see a subtle difference between them. {jIHvaD jang ghaH} might mean
>he answered instead of you. The literal English translation bears out
>this interpretation: "He answers for me."
Okrand describes <-vaD> as 'for, intended for' and i've seen that as a
limiting the use to the 'intended for'. Sayeth the holy book:
"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."
In English the 'for' in 'He answers for me' doesn't convey that. That
was why i had trouble with the <-vaD> in <jIHvaD Qatlh tlhIngan Hol>
for 'For me, Klingon is difficult'. But Valkris' statement <Qu'vaD
lI' De'vam> seems to mean that i'm being too limiting.
I still don't like using <-vaD> that broadly and will continue to
try to recast. But for verbs of speaking we have canon use of <-vaD>
in the <jIDoy'be'> joke. And the consensus is that <jang> can be used
as a verb of speaking.
- DaQtIq