[tlhIngan Hol] Admire the man..

[mayqel qunenoS]

So, if I wrote :

puchpa'vaD loD vemmoHbe' be'.
a woman doesn't wake up a man for the bathroom.

then, in this sentence, would the {puchpa'} be considered a beneficiary ?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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
> way.
>
> In the bathroom example, isn't the bathroom affected ? As soon as
> someone (the person of the sentence) wakes up, he goes to the
> bathroom..
>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>