tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 27 00:16:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Refining our ideas on indirect objects
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Refining our ideas on indirect objects
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 97 06:45:38 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Marian Schwartz wrote:
> ghItlh SuStel
> >Couldn't one say instead {mulI' De'vam}? What's stopping this?
>
> Here's an way to encompass this: {-vaD} isn't exactly like "for," and it
> isn't exactly like "to." It's a little bit of both. Now the loose use of
> the verb prefixes is mostly just the form "to." Therefore, "jIHvaD"
> doesn't always equal {mu-} exactly.
I don't think so. You're just fiddling with English words, not Klingon
concepts. Klingon doesn't have different prepositions, it's got {-vaD} to
represent the beneficiary of an action.
Try to forget English entirely and analyze the problem from a Klingon point of
view.
SuStel
Stardate 97739.3