tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 08 04:45:34 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - pabqoqwIj vIlughmoH
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - pabqoqwIj vIlughmoH
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 07:35:52 -0400
<naDevDaq loD vIleghlaH> luqel Burt Clawson Qov je:
>> > 1./naDev/ never takes /-Daq/, so to say "in here" or "to here" just
>> > say /naDev/.
>> > 2. I said "from here." The motion of the verb /legh/ is directed
>away
>> > from here, so I'd use /naDevvo'/.
>>
>> Here comes the question. I thought that /-vo'/ referred only to > >
>physical motion away from.
>The motion of the verb /legh/ is physically directed away from here.
>A spatial concept. You can physically point in the direction of the
>action, or draw a line on a picture.
Is being spatial enough? The action takes place here, and nothing is really
going away from here except your attention. The examples most fresh in my
mind about <-vo'> are related to actual motion, making <-vo'> "away from" as
well as "from". I am uncomfortable with the sentence, especially since my
first impulse would be <naDev jIHtaHvIS vIleghlaH.> "I can see you while I'm
here." I would prefer to see <-vo'> reserved for times when action is
directed away. It feels wrong to see away from a place, and yes, it's only a
feeling ultimately. So take what you will from this.
Qermaq