[85557] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bach?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed May 27 21:38:27 2009
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:36:15 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <f5b478ef0905271801p24d197b5qb8af1ec32bccb133@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
qa'vaj wrote:
> 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'.
I don't think {HeSwI'} is an indirect object here. Even in English you
cannot say *"I shot the criminal the gun." You could say "I shot the
criminal WITH the gun," but then you've just made "criminal" the direct
object of "shot." Unless you're giving the gun TO the criminal or
shooting FOR THE BENEFIT OF the criminal, {-vaD} is not the appropriate
meaning.
In any case, when I see {HeSwI'vaD nISwI' bach yaS}, I'm going to read
it as "The officer shot the disruptor for the criminal." It does say
that, whether you think "the criminal" should be an indirect object or not.
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
