tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 07:45:49 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: vImugh
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: vImugh
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:45:20 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:12:37 -0800 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It's time to assert my rapidly-fading authority as an ex-BG... :-)
...
> >> K: bIngabchugh, vaj qatu'nIS.
> >> E: If you disappear I will need to find you.
> >
> >majQa'!
>
> The grammar is indeed fine, but the vocabulary is suspect. The appropriate
> word for "find" here would be {Sam}. {tu'} means "notice".
I agree on the word choice, but would prefer to be a little more
comprehensive in the explanation. {Sam} is the action of
seeking, for which English often uses "find", as in, "I need to
find a doctor.." English also uses "find" for the more passive
activity of noticing without seeking, as in "I found a coin on
the floor."
We tend to favor {tu'} because of the ever useful {tu'lu'} which
all us "to be"-centric speakers love so well, but {Sam} is
important and it is important to recognize the difference in
these two different flavors of "find".
Oddly, these verbs seem linked somewhat to tense. {tu'} favors
past tense (though exists in others) because it describes a
discovery, and one can rarely describe future discoveries. {Sam}
tends to favor the future, since it is goal oriented and once
the goal is achieved, the action stops, unless you are
describing an earlier search for a goal. Commands will favor
{Sam}, since they favor future action while descriptions of
environments (which favor past) will favor {tu'}.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'