[85556] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bach?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Wed May 27 21:04:19 2009
In-Reply-To: <4A1C9CE2.2050502@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:01:50 -0500
From: "qa'vaj" <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> 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
