tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 17 06:38:07 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:44:46 -0500 Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [I have removed much that we disagree on.]
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >So, I put it back in your court. If the effect of {-moH} is so
> >incidental that it doesn't deserve attention, show me an example
> >that wins your case without using {-moH}. I simply dare you.
>
> latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang.
>
> No, I don't mean that either literally or idiomatically. :-) It's
> merely a clear example of the locative applying more to the object
> of the sentence than to the subject. The translation "into" is an
> appropriate one here.
Good choice. In this case, pouring is arguably a verb of motion
and the locative is arguably the destination. This is a very
interesting example. Each time I start to comment on it, I see
yet another angle from which it looks even more interesting. I
need to ponder this one a while.
I thank you for accepting my dare and presenting a good example.
I'd be delighted to be proven wrong convincingly so that I can
increase my understanding of how the language works. You have
not yet totally convinced me, but this example is good enough
that it is worthy of deeper thought. I find myself respecting
you as a peer in this argument more than I sense you return the
favor.
> Heck, even {nuqDaq yuch Dapol?} uses a locative that doesn't have a
> lot to do with the location of the subject of the sentence.
I perfectly disagree. The moment of the action of the verb, the
subject is at the location. The question is not "Where is the
chocolate?" The question is "Where do you store the chocolate?"
The action occurs while you and the chocolate are in the same
place.
> If you
> try to argue otherwise, I'm likely to decide that *you* are the one
> who is clinging to an unsupported notion without justification.
Come on. The action occurs at a location. That's what locatives
do. In this case, storing/keeping the chocolate happens where
you are as you store the chocolate.
> >> We'll have to disagree peacefully on this one, at least until someone
> >> else manages to convince one of us to switch sides.
> >
> >Nice try at distorting my argument until I sound unreasonable
> >and quickly declaring yourself to have the last word. These are
> >not the tactics of an honorable participant in a discussion
> >seeking anything like truth or understanding.
>
> I guess you're not one to "disagree peacefully", then. :-)
Not when you offer your highly biased summary of my argument
(which you just omitted from this post) with no offer for me to
review that summary and have the opportunity to agree or
disagree and then you unilaterally declare the discussion ended.
That's not reasonable behavior. It's not very honorable
behavior, either.
Basically, that comes across as, "I've considered your opinion
and mine and being completely unbiased, I've decided that I'm
right and you are wrong, so there's no sense in any further
discussion. You are not significant enough of an intellect to be
capable of swaying my opinion, so you might as well stop
talking. I'm not listenning. La la la la la la la la la la..."
That's not the way I treat you.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI'