tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 12 10:42:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
>Mailing-List: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:34:53 -0400
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>
>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.
Very well said. A lesson learned in Lojban, where each "verb" (predicate)
has a set of fixed, specific meanings for each of its arguments. And
indeed, the predicate for "to go" *requires* that there be (if only
implied) a goer, a destination, an origin, a route, and a means of
transport (legs, if you're walking). But the predicate for "to run" only
entails a runner, a surface (on which the runner runs), limbs (for
running), and a gait. You don't necessarily have to have an origin or
destination if you're running; you might be running in place or in
circles. If you DO mean "run to someplace" you can add those features in,
in a variety of ways, or say "runningly go" and use the places of "to go"
and so on...
That's why I keep leaning toward a transitive {jeS}, though I keep
disclaiming that I have no real grounds for it. I just can't see how you
can participate without participating IN SOMETHING, even if that something
is unstated. Other verbs are another question, each has to be considered
on a case-by-case basis. {qet} has some merit to be transitive, but it
seems less strong to me than {jeS}. Actually, come to think of it, think
about "run" in English. It *CAN* be used transitively, but the object is
NOT the destination! We don't say "I ran the house" or "I ran the store",
or rather we do, but that's a totally different meaning for "run" which
isn't relevant here. In the sense of "running" as in ambulating quickly we
never use the destination as the object. And yet we do say "I ran the
race," and "I ran a four-minute mile," and "I ran all THE WAY back
home"... It would seem we like to use the *route* as the object of "run",
and not the destination (not necessarily everywhere; we don't say "I ran
the street.") I believe we have the {ghoS} may take the route as its
object (He chu' yIghoS; HeDon ghoS), as well as the destination.
~mark