tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 08 07:58:35 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

-vo' (was Re: KLBC - pabqoqwIj vIlughmoH)

At 04:55 AM 8/8/98 -0700, Qermaq wrote:
><naDevDaq loD vIleghlaH> luqel Burt Clawson Qov je:
>
>>> > 1./naDev/ never takes /-Daq/, so to say "in here" or "to here" just
>>> > say /naDev/.
>>> > 2. I said "from here." The motion of the verb /legh/ is directed
>>away
>>> > from here, so I'd use /naDevvo'/.
>>>
>>> Here comes the question. I thought that /-vo'/ referred only to > >
>>physical motion away from.
>>The motion of the verb /legh/ is physically directed away from here.
>>A spatial concept. You can physically point in the direction of the
>>action, or draw a line on a picture.
>
>Is being spatial enough? The action takes place here, and nothing is really
>going away from here except your attention. The examples most fresh in my
>mind about <-vo'> are related to actual motion, making <-vo'> "away from" as
>well as "from". I am uncomfortable with the sentence, especially since my
>first impulse would be <naDev jIHtaHvIS vIleghlaH.> "I can see you while I'm
>here." I would prefer to see <-vo'> reserved for times when action is
>directed away. It feels wrong to see away from a place, and yes, it's only a
>feeling ultimately. So take what you will from this.
>

I seem to recall a line from the "Useful Phrases" section of TKD, which
went "You can see the factory(?) from here" (meaning your hotel room)
which used /naDevvo'/.  (I'm at work without my TKD, so I can't be more
specific than that.)  Apparently the "movement" of one's attention or
sight _is_ sufficiently spacial.

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level