tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 10 18:29:40 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
ja' charghwI':
>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.
You are assigning a great deal of importance to the subject of the verb.
I don't agree with your suggestion that the location of an action must be
so tightly bound to the subject. I've already said that the {ghoS}-like
verbs completely contradict that assumption.
verghDaq lupDujHom jormoHmeH ghoqwI', Se' SeHlaw chu'.
Where did the explosion take place? Where was the spy when it happened?
I think this sentence supports the interpretation that the spy blew up
the shuttlecraft by remote control and he was probably nowhere near the
shuttlebay at the time.
I'm not sure how much support I can muster from the "taste perception"
verbs like {na'} and {wIb}. KGT tells us that from the Klingon point of
view, the taste of foods and perception of the taste are closely connected.
That's at least partially comparable to seeing an object, in my opinion.
>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.
vuDlIj Dapol net chaw'ba'.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh