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.. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The bathroom isn't a beneficiary of the action of waking or not waking.
Hmm.. I hadn't thought of that.
How is that man "final"? Why not just say nuvvam?
I thought that the {Qav} was similar in meaning to the {natlIS} ; I didn't think of using {nuvvam}, which of course is way better.. If only it had come to mind !
mop Hurgh
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:05 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/24/2016 5:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
qaStaHvIS ram puchpa'vaD vembe'bogh nuv, yIHo' ! admire the man who doesn't wake up for the bathroom at night !
The bathroom isn't a beneficiary of the action of waking or not waking.
Here's a somewhat awkward rendition of this idea:
qaStaHvIS ram puch lo'nISbe'bogh QongtaHbogh nuv yIHo' admire the sleeping person who doesn't need to use the bathroom during the night!
nuv Qav quvmoHqu'lu'.. that man is truly blessed..
How is that man "final"? Why not just say nuvvam?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org