tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 07 10:06:19 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: New word from Okrand

Some arguments clearly never die.

According to SuSvaj:
> 
> At 08:31 PM 8/4/97 -0700, veghwI' wrote:
> >ghItlh peHruS
> >> 
> >>>I thought "a woman goes through a forest" is okay as long as she does
> >>>not go through any solid matter within that forest. 

No. Going through a forest was explicitly a specific example
Okrand said did NOT apply to {vegh}. Door, yes. Window, yes.
Tunnel, yes. Forest, no. Space, no. Lines of warriors, no.
Worm-hole, probably. Gate, probably not, unless there is an
archway so it is clearly enclosed.

> >'ej ghItlh SuSvaj
> > 
> >> This is what I origenaly thought as well, but the problem is that,
> >> unlike a tunnel, or a door,the forest was not specifically created
> >> for the purpose of going through. That's why "vegh" does not apply
> >> here.

Well, that's not the reason. It does not apply to forest
because Okrand specifically said it did not apply to forest. A
forest is not, as all of his examples were, an enclosed opening
in a barrier.

> >No, I have to disagree.  The intention or purpose of the object one is
> >passing through does not strike me as particularly critical.  

Agreed.

> >A more relevant aspect seems to be that the object is enclosed, as
> >someone else has already noted.  Consider that if I'm trapped in a blind
> >alley by some Romulans firing disrupters and one of the beams which
> >misses me conveniently blows an egress in the previously dead-end wall
> >of the alley, then you can bet your socks that I'm going to go through
> >and make good my escape.  And I'd use <<vegh>>, because I'm going
> >through the wall (much like a tunnel), but note that the Rommie never
> >"intended" that hole for that purpose.

I agree completely.

> Hmmm.  I don't remember the concept of the passage being "enclosed" as part
> of the definition of "vegh."  After all, a gate is not necessarily entierly
> enclosed.  A gate through a fence usually does not have anything above it,
> if you catch my meaning.  I realy got the impression that what was
> important was the fact the gate was intended for the purpose of allowing
> access through the fence.

Okrand never said this applied to "gate". He said door, window,
tunnel. He also said it only applies if these things are open.
A rock passing through a window by breaking the glass is not
appropriate for {vegh}.

What do these things have in common? You can't pass through the
wall without breaking it as you pass through, but you can pass
through a window or door, if it is open and use {vegh} to
describe the experience. A tunnel similarly allows passage
through a mountain.

Now, if TWO rocks were thrown through a window, the first one
smashes the window and does not {vegh}, but the second might
arguably {vegh}.

This really is not all that mentally challenging and I really
don't understand all this confusion. Door, Window, tunnel, pass
through without breakage. What is the problem?

> SuSvaj

charghwI'

Back to archive top level