tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 27 22:22:05 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuq bach?
- From: "qa'vaj" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nuq bach?
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 00:20:32 -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=d6FzX4XYVa4xVtqw4EoHYBrGPQgc4EmE4ekbKw5TF6M=; b=i0FDhnMvxljkpzlf3nq9nrMHRDByJSaOvleK12kN/h9HYRKIoxqTifMW0tr3rqmC8D eNuzTacc/xehrVCLcto55St44Nmnm8gztKtC6IPID4tUn4QVMrPmImXiMkPupkruJm7J n7qAWckJ0ZYI7qtWC//RmuP9oNJ4Pt3j7ab2c=
- 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=mcD2BCPRhegr/6P1v9MYo43VY89gDgxKoaIxZHxQCHmFY9gdc+p/6rSMP68R/p6WWw ABoY7zMvgF4tIJkSAkzbcf7QFmyVkTnnD7pRQlqD4vXSj3nJ/jwfJrrMoteNPoYUJdqd OPCTTdaOkNSvxC/gouNLtb9vGK7hL7Z4aBr9M=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM, ghunchu'wI' <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 2009, at 9:01 PM, qa'vaj wrote:
>
> > {-vaD} also marks the indirect object.
>
> I opine differently. What I recall TKD's addendum saying is that the
> recipient of a gift may be considered the indirect object. I do not
> consider someone being shot to be the same sort of thing. In my
> mind, the target is a location, not a beneficiary.
>
>
FWIW
6.8. Indirect objects
While the object of the verb is the recipient of the action, the
indirect object may be considered the beneficiary. In a
Klingon sentence, the indirect object precedes the object
and is suffixed with the Type 5 noun suffix {-vaD} <for, intended
for.> The suffix may be attached to either a noun or a
pronoun.
{yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama'} <The prisoner gave the officer>
<the knife> ({yaS} <officer,> {taj}
<knife,> {nobpu'} <gave,> {qama'}
<prisoner>)
{chaHvaD Soj qem yaS} <The officer brings them food>
({chaH} <they,> {Soj} <food,> {qem}
<bring,> {yaS} <officer>)
I don't disagree that Klingon usage may be to refer to the target object of
{bach} by it's location - that is certainly supported by the canon Voragh
posted. But I don't see a grammatical argument (nor a semantic one) that
dismisses {-vaD}, in the sense of being obviously contradictory to the
descriptions in TKD.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH