tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 04:52:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mup vs. qIp
ja' peHruS:
>Until I saw {yIQeqQo' neH! DoS yIqIp} in TKW, I would have thoroughly agreed
>with your post expounding {mup}.
*blink*
Either you're lost or I am, and as I am the one who wrote that post, I'm
pretty sure I know where *I* stand. :-)
My interpretation of {mup} doesn't have a problem with {DoS yIqIp} at all.
The phrase isn't ordering you to "run into" the target, but to accomplish
a successful attack against it.
> Adding to my confusion, however, was
>{mupwI'}. Apparently {*nail* qIp mupwI'} in that "hammer" is an implement
>and TKD glossed {qIp} as "hit with an implement."
*blink* again
A hammer does not *use* an implement. It *is* an implement.
A hammer does not beat on a nail, it merely comes into contact with it.
A *carpenter* beats on a nail (using a hammer).
>If I had been making up the abovementioned TKW entry, I would have used {DoS
>yImup}. Since I am wrong, it turns out, I am confused.
Since I read {mup} as "impact, strike" (as it is defined in TKD, by the way),
I'd tend to interpret {DoS yImup} as "run into the target". This would be an
appropriate command to a football player, perhaps.
>At this time, I side with SuStel that we need to see how MO uses {mup}.
We *have* seen how he uses it: {mupwI'} "hammer". It fits the definition
perfectly; a hammer strikes {mup} what its user is hitting {qIp}.
-- ghunchu'wI'