[tlhIngan Hol] Admire the man..
sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Jun 24 07:40:51 PDT 2016
On 6/24/2016 10:28 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel :
>> The bathroom isn't a beneficiary of the action of waking or not waking.
> There is something here that rubs me the wrong way (I love this
> american expression !).
> Way back, I believed that by saying "beneficiary of the action", we
> meant that it is someone or something that actually benefits/profits
> from the action.
> So, someone told me (I think it was Qov), that by saying "beneficiary"
> we don't mean that someone or something actually benefits, but that
> someone or something (other than the direct object) is affected in any
> In the bathroom example, isn't the bathroom affected ? As soon as
> someone (the person of the sentence) wakes up, he goes to the
You're right about the idea of a beneficiary, but in your original
sentence *(**qaStaHvIS ram puchpa'vaD vembe'bogh nuv, yIHo'**)* you are
saying that waking up or not waking up /directly /affects the bathroom,
not that there is a chain of events between waking up and affecting the
bathroom. The link between the action and the beneficiary has to be
closer than that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol