tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 03 04:28:51 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
vIH
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: vIH
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 17:26:16 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Thu, 3 Mar 94 13:42:41 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 13:42:41 EST
>Interesting point. Essentially, {vIH} can take indirect objects, but not
>direct ones, though Klingon does not differentiate between them the way
>English does. I do see a difference between {vIH} and the other locative
>verbs. An infant lying on its back, squirming may be said to {vIH}, but it is
>not necessarily moving along a path from origin to destination the way things
>which walk, fly, etc. do. That's why I see it fitting into this class of
>verbs only some of the time, and then a bit more tenuously. When the pathway
>is the significant point of the motion, {ghoS} is probably a better
>choice.
Hee. Had to comment on this. There's canonical edidence for charghwI''s
contention about a squirming infant being said to vIH even though it
doesn't ghoS. I just remembered in CK, in the restaurant scene, where the
patron says "the serpent-worms are moving"... "vIH qagh". And certainly
qagh move like an infant... squirming and wriggling but not really going
anywhere, at least all the ones I've seen on the shows.
>charghwI'
~mark