tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 11 20:51:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:06:32 -0500
qon MO 'ej ghItlh Voragh:
>{bach} shoot (v) (cf. baH)
>"Verb, to fire a projectile weapon at." (MSN)
>
>Thus, the correct formation is "nISwI' tIH bach} (shoot the disruptor
beam)....Similarly, {pu' >bach} is shoot a phaser." (KGT:56)
Is it just me, or is this contradictory? We know MO wrote the definitions
for MSN, so that would make it seem that the object of <bach> is the target.
But his KGT examples use the chosen weapon's beam, not the target, as the
object.
>SuvwI' vI' Dub naQvam 'ej ray' HopDaq bachlu'meH chuqna' ghurmoH naQvam
>This serves to steady the aim of a warrior and increase the effective range
>for distance targeting. (SkyBox S14)
This implies the target is the location, not the object. <ray' HopDaq
bachlu'meH> = "For shooting at a remote location..."
>pe'vIl mu'qaDmey tIbach
Now the object is the projectile - the curses.
>So, the object of {bach} is the projectile, beam, etc. not the target.
maQochbe' vIneH 'ach maQoch. Sovbe'lu'ba'. The MSN definition contradicts
this assumption. It explicitly indicates <bach>'s object as that which is
fired at. It is likely that the definition is in error, considering all the
cited canon is using it in that sense. But as it stands we simply have canon
which is contradictory. MO's definition and usage don't match - till he
officialy endorses one at the exclusion of the other, we simply don't know
the true object of <bach>.
Qermaq