tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 15:03:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:27:29 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
Even with {pa'Daq Daleghlu'}, I would assume that {pa'Daq} is
the location of the indefinite subject, not the object. The
action of seeing is the action of perceiving through sensors
which receive and interpret light. The location of the action is
the location of the perception, not the remote location of the
perceived object.
There could, perhaps, be a verb which means "be seen" as its
root definition. Its subject is that which is perceived from
somewhere else. The action of such a verb would be located where
the seen subject is being and not where the seer might be.
Meanwhile, {legh} does not mean "be seen". It means "see". The
action occurs where the seeing happens and that happens where
the perception happens, not where the stimulus happens.
> 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? :-)
Is that a canon case? I will stand corrected if it is. I
honestly doubt that, given the way Okrand now presents the use
of locatives, this would be a good sentence. Instead, I'd expect
something like {DoS yIqIp. yIbaH.}
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh