tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 10 13:41:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: asking
On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ter'eS writes:
> >[...]
> >I've always used {tlhob} to mean "ask a question", but the Addendum
> >actually defines it as "request, ask, plead". This leads me to think
> >that {tlhob} can only be used for "ask *for* (something)". So I would
> >guess that {yu'} "question, interrogate" would be the verb meaning
> >"ask a question".
> >[...]
> >Does this seem reasonable?
>
> I don't think so. The Addendum is pretty good about clarifying possible
> ambiguities, and if {tlhob} were really "ask *for* (something), I believe
> it would have said so. The gloss "request, ask, plead" certainly fits my
> understanding of a "verb of speaking" -- its object would be the actual
> question or request.
>
Except that I've been told by others on this list that when Okrand puts
multiple meanings in a definition, he does it to *restrict* and not expand
the definition. So "request" and "plead" seem to me to be restricting
"ask" to one type of asking - for a thing. You don't "request" a
question, but you can request an object.
> My take on {yu'} is that its object is the person (or thing) that is being
> interrogated. {qama' po'wI' joq yu'lu'. vay' SuqmeH tlhoblu'.}
>
I can't argue with that. It does seem intuitivly right. But, in Dave
Barron's {lut'a'}, he uses {yu'} with a sentence as its object:
{"bISuvrup'a'" yu' qoch} (or something like that - I don't have
{jatmey} with me). Is this simply wrong?
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
-- ter'eS