tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 11 15:35:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:32:06 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
The description Okrand gave us about how locatives work with
these verbs makes me think differently. Especially, he had an
example that was something like:
lupDujDaq may'Duj vIghoS.
I went to the battleship on the shuttle.
The verb of motion (where the subject is moving) occurs in the
location given by the locative. The other location specified by
the direct object is the destination of that motion. This is a
special case and is noted as exceptional in TKD, reinforced by
his more recent pronouncements.
> 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 think this is a remnant of the oddness of verbs with {-moH}.
There are two actions here. One is causation. One is explosion.
The action of exploding occurs where the subject of that action
explodes, which is on the dock. It doesn't look like the subject
here because of {-moH}, but the subject of the action of
exploding is definitely {lupDujHom}.
> 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.
So, please be a bit more explicit about how this relates to
locatives. I'd think that tasting would occur in the mouth and
seeing would occur in the eyes, hence the eyes of the person
seeing would be the location where the seeing occurs. The person
being seen has nothing to do with the location of where the
seeing occurs. This is my whole point.
> >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'.
bIqarba'.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh