tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 27 18:03:55 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuq bach?
- From: "qa'vaj" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nuq bach?
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:01:50 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=a82w6NbkaTRP2H9efdFR0H1hI363Cx6i/4kDS9Uo92Q=; b=OqLzz8rVBRc0YpvZd/dsHHLJfiSmxHiKwhGjk3g4RT5aQDSNzPn5g+L8jqoSjg/k26 Q4SgPwUDh17pJuHhrj6k+IWlR/Vx+kpSVxtrMJs1i0i1W5Xv/W9SrNCw8aQUJ8LciOos X3SrEp+ASfRj1hV/fm+gpWVhmn2HRikNuM2Es=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=iTXALTO9sGayr0cT0ueexkTvke0MGrCtqgB/9bYeqENgfHhC3EcsdA7suaR3lftoyH jS1n6gX8jaN9VuG6uO3POcjsVbcT+ID+vZiAKL2d4ee6sUxo85olRzrvHT9F6Nnfcuzo ryZECoB25qH/xMoUtgNMAOeu/C7URzD6NIYEU=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> {-vaD} indicates a beneficiary, not a target. {HeSwI'vaD bach yaS} means
> "The officer shot (something) for the criminal."
>
>
I don't see the point being made here. {-vaD} also marks the indirect
object. Given that Klingons consider the thing begin shot the direct object
of {bach}, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to take the thing being
shot at as the indirect object. Even if the section 6.8 usage of {-vaD] is
ignored, the section 3.3.5 usage has <for, intended for>. "The officer shot
(something) intended for the criminal" works in the English, at least. The
only way I can see 3.3.5 excluding {-vaD} is to interpret that section as
restricting {-vaD} to only 'for' in a sense like 'for the benefit of' or
'in the interest of' or maybe 'on behalf of'.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH