tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 05:54:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:34:53 -0400
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>In a message dated 8/3/1999 9:47:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
><< The reason we do not include {qet} in the collection of words known
> to have a destination as their object is that running doesn't have
> an obvious destination as a primary concern.
> >>
>============
>I have seen an attempt at saying "runs to the house." Face it!
Yes, but you can do other things with running that you cannot do with going.
When you go, you go SOMEWHERE. In most cases, the somewhere is important.
On the other hand, the place you're running to is not necessarily more
important than the fact that you're getting exercise, or that you're being
chased by a giant beast, or that you're in a hurry. There is no exclusively
obvious object of {qet}.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that {jeS} should have been defined as
"participate (in)." There's very little chance to use the word otherwise,
and we've seen a number of words now which have been "expanded" to include
the preposition. I'm not so willing to believe that {qet} takes the
destination of running as the object. Why not {'uSDu'}? Or {tlha'wI'}? Or
{poH}? And if you want to accept ANY of these, what happens to the meaning
of the verb? Verbs become so flexible that they don't carry much meaning
anymore, when in context.
SuStel
Stardate 99608.6