tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 05 13:44:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIHmey
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yIHmey
- Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 15:43:58 CDT
I think I lost track of who said that:
> >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."
>
but I know that this is what DaQtIq answered:
> 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
I think it does. "me" certainly benefits from "his answering for me"
> was why i had trouble with the <-vaD> in <jIHvaD Qatlh tlhIngan Hol>
> for 'For me, Klingon is difficult'. But Valkris' statement <Qu'vaD
I agrree. "being difficult" somehow doesn't go with a "beneficiary"
> lI' De'vam> seems to mean that i'm being too limiting.
>
I think, "being useful" goes very well with the concept of benefiting
someone/something, though.
HomDoq