tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 28 23:14:21 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: "Nathan Grange" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:20:12 +0000
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Priority: normal
(
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
> Reply-to: [email protected]
> From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
> According to WestphalWz:
> >
> > In a message dated 98-04-25 13:18:02 EDT, Qermaq writes:
> >
> > << If anyone has a hankering to use <qIm> transitively, may I recommend a
> > wonderful verb made especially for you? <buS>! For all your transitive
> > concentration needs. >>
> >
> > There is a major difference in intensity. {buS} means "think only about,
> > focus on, concentrate on". {qIm} mean "pay attention". These two words do
> > not mean anywhere near the same thing. Therefore, I find it preposterous that
> > both Qermaq and SuStel even suggest that one can replace the other.
> >
> > peHruS
> >
>
> I respectfully remind you that the full definition of {qIm} is
> "pay attention, concentrate". If one were to assume that
> {qIm}'s definition may be expanded to include "pay attention
> TO" one would likely then be compelled to believe that it also
> meant "concentrate ON", which is the third definition of {buS}.
(I just how these words fit into my limited understanding of tlhIngan
Hol.)
On CK, Worf occasionally says 'pay attention, concentrate' which
MO immediately translates as yIqlm, yIbuS
> I do not personally believe that {qIm}'s definition can be
> expanded in this way and do not recommend that people use it
> with any direct object. {qIm} means "concentrate". {buS} means
> "concentrate on". The primary difference between these
> definitions is that in English "concentrate" is intransitive,
> but "concentrate on" begs for an object.
>
> There is not much apparent difference in intensity between
> these definitions, however. Certainly, the word "preposterous"
> seems a little strong in reference to the suggestion that one
> can serve as the transitive equivalent of the other.
>
> charghwI'
(Now if I can work out what transitive, (and int.) mean, I will
really be able to participate intelligibly)