tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 30 22:11:24 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuq bach?
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'