tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 09:42:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-lI'}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-lI'}
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:41:54 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marian Schwartz" at Nov 4, 97 07:01:01 pm
I tend to agree here. If a rock falls off a cliff and you can
see the ground where it will obviously land, pumlI' nagh. I
think volition CAN be implied, but the important thing is that
there is a target, a destination, a goal toward which the
action applies itself with the clear sense that the action will
become complete once that goal is reached.
{-taH} lacks any focus on that finite sense of action. The
action continues. The beginning and end are fuzzy; not in
focus. With {-lI'} the action definitely is fucussed upon an
end goal which will stop the action.
charghwI'
According to Marian Schwartz:
>
>
>
>
> qoror here. I would like to offer an opinion. I've noticed that
> often when there's a KLBC message with {-lI'} on a verb with something
> inanimate as the subject. Usually the Grammarian replies something like
> "Does this [thing] really have free will and intentions of its own?" I
> offer that it is *not* necessarily the subject be the vay' with the
> "definite end in mind." (That's not from TKD, it's just firmly implanted
> in my mind.) It says in TKD that it's the *activity* that has the definite
> end in mind. There is nothing in 4.2.7 that suggests or implies that it is
> the *subject* that is intending. TKD offers {chollI'} as an example and
> suggests the subject might be a missile. Carrying this a short step
> farther, say something with {-lI'} is in a story and an inanimate object as
> the subject. It might not necessarily be someone else in the story that's
> doing the expecting, it could just be the reader.
> Opinions?
> Qapla'
>