tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 05 19:26:11 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIHmey
- From: DaQtIq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: yIHmey
- Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 22:26:08 -0400
ghItlh HomDoq:
>I think I lost track of who said that:
ghunchu'wI' said this.
>> >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"
This is an obviously valid use of <-vaD>. And likely saying <mujang>
is also valid and certainly understandable. I've become more cautious
in assuming what the "natural" object for a Klingon verb is and thus
am more likely to use a type 5 noun suffix.
>> 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.
I agree; it seems intuitive to my English mind, but I don't want to assume
it makes sense to a Klingon mind. If <Qu'vaD lI' De'vam> makes sense,
does <Qu'vaD lI'be' De'vam> also?
- Sovbejbe'bogh DaQtIq