tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 30 22:11:24 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: nuq bach?

ghunchu'wI' (qunchuy@alcaco.net)



On May 31, 2009, at 12:39 AM, qa'vaj wrote:

> (from SuStel's comment mainly) I'm left with the impression that if  
> we had
> no canon for {bach}, and didn't know that Klingons use {-Daq}, {-vaD}
> wouldn't work anyway for some reason intrinsic in the definition of  
> {-vaD}.

The combination of what {bach} means and what {-vaD} means makes it  
highly unlikely that {DoSvaD bach} could reasonably be interpreted as  
shooting at the target.  What I get out of {qama'vaD nIch bach yaS}  
is something like "The officer shot the prisoner the ammunition."  I  
can best rationalize that as the officer somehow propelling bullets  
for the prisoner to catch.

> If that's the case, then there is something wrong with my  
> understanding of
> {-vaD}.

It's possible that you get {-vaD} but there's something wrong with  
your understanding of "indirect object".

-- ghunchu'wI'






Back to archive top level