tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 12 18:39:59 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:38:38 -0800
At 20:59 98-02-11 -0800, you wrote:
}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.
He didn't write the MSN definitions. MSN staff 'expanded' them. There was
one where they cast {je'} to mean eat as well as fed someone else, so
someone asked them for clarifiaction and discovered they were embellishing
them at will.
}>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>.
It IS possible that it can take either object.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian