tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 04 18:36:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..
ja' charghwI':
>My argument here is that if you are standing outside of a bar
>and you look in through a window and see Krankor and you tell
>your friend:
>
>qachDaq Qanqor vIlegh.
>
>then you have just made a mistake because you have tried to
>transfer what is ambiguous in English into an equal ambiguity in
>Klingon. Unfortunately for you, in Klingon, this is not
>ambiguous. Locatives (except in the special case of the direct
>objects of verbs of motion) always refer to the location where
>the action of the verb happens, not the location of the object
>of an action.
Please forgive my prolonging the argument, but I still think that
the "location of action" of a verb like {legh} is a bit fuzzy. It
is a process that involves both the seen and the seer. Why should
the location of the subject be any more important than that of the
object? Both {jIlegh} and {Daleghlu'} are acceptable sentences.
They remain acceptable when a locative is added: {pa'Daq jIlegh}
and {pa'Daq Daleghlu'}. Why would {pa'Daq qalegh} necessarily be
talking about where *I* am when I see you?
ja' ~mark:
>Hmm... You know, I think I agree with you. I was going to disagree, but
>even before I got to where you said this I had already come up with the
>same conclusion in passing.
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that locatives always refer to
the location where the action occurs -- except when they refer to the
location towards which the action is directed. TKD quite clearly has
"to" as one of the possible translations. This seems appropriate not
only when the verb is a "verb of motion" like {ghoS}, but also in cases
like {DoSDaq yIbaH}. Or is that case rejected by the charghwI'/~mark
agreement? :-)
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh