tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 14 12:56:23 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: bach WAS: Re: KBLC [K'ryntes]
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:56:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:55:46 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.
The important point here is to ignore ALL of the MSN definitions
since they were recklessly expanded without any consultation
with Okrand at all.
> }>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 is important to ignore the MSN definition.
> }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.
Untrue. The MSN definition is not Okrands and is not canon.
> }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>.
He may later say otherwise, but so far his own definitions and
useage match perfectly. The object is that which is fired, not
that which is fired upon. Technically, it is the beam or
projectile fired, but he explained how sometimes the useage
spills over to sometimes refer to the weapon fired. He never
uses it to refer to the target.
> It IS possible that it can take either object.
But highly unlikely. We have some stupidly shortsighted MSN
staff to thank for this confusion.
> Qov [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian
>
charghwI'