tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 19:49:58 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
• Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:53:50 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

ja' T'Lod:
> > consider the sentence: I made the girl give the knife to the officer.
> > there is one beneficiary of the giving and one beneficiary of the
>causation.
>
> .. which can easily be expressed as two sentences with no  >>
>
>I see only one beneficiary - the officer.  I would like to know how to say it
>properly as: I caused the girl to give the knife to the officer.  It could be:
>
>yaSvaD taj nobmeH be'Hom vIra' - I ordered the girl to give the knife to the
>officer.  The -meH clause seems to be part of this translation.  If anyone has
>a better way of saying this, please do.

I think the verb {raD} "force, compel" works best for this particular idea:
yaSvaD taj nobpu' be'Hom 'e' vIraD.  This actually is two sentences, which
charghwI' said would easily be able to express the idea.  It does lose the
"beneficiary of causation" concept completely, which is not a bad thing. :-)

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC: RE: KLBC:Eating.
• Next by Date: KLBG: They Might Be Giants
• Prev by thread: Re: KLBC : revised bang bom mu'
• Next by thread: Possible qepHom
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level