On 10/5/2017 2:45 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
There are some verbs, which contain the concept of "for, about, etc". For example {SaH} "care about, be concerned about".
And we have said, that when we are using these verbs, we don't place an additional {-vaD} on the word, which would take a {-vaD}, if the "for, about, etc" concept wasn't included in the verb.
Don't think of *SaH* as containing the concept of /for, about/, etc. Think of it in Klingon. If you *SaH* a thing, you consider it and like it and pay attention to it. You're not doing anything "for" anything; you're *SaH*ing something.
For example, we say {romuluSngan vISaHbe'} and not {romuluSnganvaD vISaHbe'}.
/I do not *SaH*//the Romulan/ versus /I do not *SaH* it for the Romulan./
But I need to ask.. If we did write {romuluSnganvaD vISaHbe'}, would that be wrong ?
It doesn't mean /I *SaH* the Romulan; /it means /I *SaH* it for the Romulan./
And in case someone wonders why I'm asking..
In cases where I wanted to say "I gave to myself a present", since there is no prefix for "me-myself", I wrote {qunnoqvaD nob vInob}.
But if I want to say "we care only for us", and I want to write {maHvaD neH maSaH}, I stumble upon the fact that the concept of {-vaD} is already included in the {SaH}.
— in the chart notes subject-object combinations which cannot be expressed with the Klingon verb prefix system. For such meanings, suffixes (section 4.2.1) and/or pronouns (section 5.1) must be used. —TKD There is no prefix for "me to myself," so use suffixes and/or prefixes. *jIHvaD nob vInob */I give a present to myself/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name