This ambiguity is real with -vaD but I think that common sense generally sorts out any seemingly strange phrases. If not, perhaps an author is trying to make a point, or emphasize something surreal, or be poetic. You will have to interpret the sentence in its context. For what it's worth, sometimes I've found a useful translation of -vaD to be "for the sake of."

wo'vaD yISub'eghmoH
For the sake of the empire, make yourself brave!


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:12 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We know that the {-vaD}, is to be used only for the purpose of marking
the beneficiary/indirect object.

When we had discussed the definition of the beneficiary/indirect
object, we said :

"the beneficiary/indirect object, is the one affected in a different
way than the direct object".

So, now I will ask : What if there is an ambiguity, as far as the
"whether the wanna-be indirect object is actually affected ?".

Take this example for instance :

ghawran says to a soldier : "for the klingon empire be brave !"

Someone could argue that the klingon empire, isn't the beneficiary.
Why ? Because it is not affected by the "being brave" of the
individual warrior. If he's a coward, then that's his problem, qar'a'
?

Someone else though could say that the klingon empire is honored when
a warrion is brave, therefore it is to be considered the beneficiary.

So, what's the case here ?

If anyone knows the answer, then please endarken me..

mop Hurgh qunnoq
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org