[85657] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bach?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Sun May 31 01:11:48 2009
In-Reply-To: <f5b478ef0905302139y326e8e1fyf619e50dabade21d@mail.gmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 01:09:42 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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'
