tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 22 14:56:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vegh
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vegh
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
At 08:03 AM 7/22/97 -0700, SuSvaj wrote:
>charghwI' wrote.
>>I'm puzzled by this last example: does the woman actually "touch" the forest
>>as she walks through it?
>
>I don't think that whether or not the woman touches the trees is the issue.
> the issue is whether or not the object that the woman is going through is
>meant to be gone through. If wind blows through a window, it is not
>damageing the window, and that is in fact part of what the window is fore.
>On the other hand, a bullet penetrating a heart does not fit "vegh" because
>the bullet must tear it's own path, and more than likely, the heart would
>rather not be penetrated. As for a woman walking through a forest, my
>impression is that "vergh" can be used here, as the woman is not damageing
>the forest. Particularly if there is some kind of pre-existing path which
>she is following. On the other hand, if it is a bulldozer which is
>going through the forest, perhapse clearing trees for a new road, then
>"vegh" would not apply.
Okrand specifically said the word does not carry this meaning. I wrote it
down as "go through (an existing aperture)" and that seems to correctly
represent the things it can and can't mean.