tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 01 18:32:03 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....

I very much agree with this whole message. Well stated. Add that there are
two 6.8 sections in TKD. One is in the Addendum and it very much supports
your position.

charghwI'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: qe'San - Jon Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
>
>
> Before someone brings it up re my previous message. Yes I know that in
> TKD6.8 MO stated that,  "the object of the verb is the recipient of the
> action, the direct object may be considered the beneficiary." I also
> know that I've gone and used the word "recipient" to try and
> distinguish between the way some people were using beneificiary to mean
> something that benifits.  I shouldn't have used recipient in this
> context but reiterated that an iderect object can be the benificiary of
> s unbenificial action.
>
> In thinking again about this I do want to say I believe that when
> aiming/pointing at an object I feel -vaD seems more logical and in
> reference to an action following a spacial direction that -Daq (as I
> originally used) is more likely applied to lurgh. whether that should
> apply to anything else, who know ?? (I know.... MO does)
>
> "I aim at a planet" can mean either, "in the direction of the planet I
> aim" or "On the planet I aim". However, "I aim for the planet" can mean
> only one thing.
>
> Just thought of another English example  "get on the Train for work"
> Why can we use FOR here?  I know you can use TO also but I was just
> trying to show a Possiblilty.
>
> qe'San
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/

Back to archive top level