This reminds me of "For Want of a Nail". One warrior's bravery /could/ benefit the Empire. - DloraH On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 04:37 -0500, John R. Harness wrote:
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!
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org