jatlh tlhInganpu' : butlh ghajbogh nuv'e' yIHo' ! klingons say : admire the man with dirt under his fingernails ! 'a majatlh jIH latlh tera'nganpu' je : however I and other terrans say : qaStaHvIS ram puchpa'vaD vembe'bogh nuv, yIHo' ! admire the man who doesn't wake up for the bathroom at night ! nuv Qav quvmoHqu'lu'.. that man is truly blessed.. mop Hurgh qunnoq
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
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
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
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
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@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@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/24/2016 10:49 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
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 ?
You've /marked/ it as a beneficiary, so it is one, but I don't think it means what you want it to mean. The kind of /for/ you're using in the English is a purpose-/for/, not a beneficiary-/for./ Let me take out the negative from the sentence for a minute (to avoid a different problem): *puchpa' lo'meH loD, loD vemmoH be'*/a woman wakes up a man so he can use the bathroom./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Perhaps now I'm beginning to understand my problem. In klingon the {-vaD} can ONLY be used as a beneficiary-for, and NOT as a purpose-for, right ? Is this where my mistake actually lies ? That I'm using the {-vaD} as a purpose-for instead of a beneficiary-for ? On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/24/2016 10:49 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
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 ?
You've marked it as a beneficiary, so it is one, but I don't think it means what you want it to mean. The kind of for you're using in the English is a purpose-for, not a beneficiary-for. Let me take out the negative from the sentence for a minute (to avoid a different problem): puchpa' lo'meH loD, loD vemmoH be' a woman wakes up a man so he can use the bathroom.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/24/2016 11:05 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps now I'm beginning to understand my problem.
In klingon the {-vaD} can ONLY be used as a beneficiary-for, and NOT as a purpose-for, right ? Is this where my mistake actually lies ? That I'm using the {-vaD} as a purpose-for instead of a beneficiary-for ?
I think that is the case, yes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you so much for telling me ! This incident reminds me of my {-chugh} misunderstanding, when I started writing in klingon ; Then I believed, that the {-chugh} can be used in a similar way to the english "whether". Luckily -way back then- De'vID had written "if in an english sentence, the "if" can be replaced with "whether" and still make sense, then that sentence can't use the klingon {-chugh}". Or something like this.. Anyway, I'm happy I finally learned this important information, which concerns the proper use of {-vaD}. mop Hurgh qunnoq On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:06 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 6/24/2016 11:05 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps now I'm beginning to understand my problem.
In klingon the {-vaD} can ONLY be used as a beneficiary-for, and NOT as a purpose-for, right ? Is this where my mistake actually lies ? That I'm using the {-vaD} as a purpose-for instead of a beneficiary-for ?
I think that is the case, yes.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel