tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 01 18:33:22 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....

I think you are fixating on the idea of {-vaD} marking the benefactor of an
action. While this is true, it is also true that in the Addendum on page 180
of TKD, section 6.8, Okrand has expanded {-vaD}'s function to basically be a
marker for an indirect object. A lot of nouns are indirect objects that
might not be considered the "benefactor" of the action.

This is why I consider the target of an action, when the verb does not
typically have a target as its direct object, to be appropriate for {-vaD}.

charghwI'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: qe'San (Jon Brown) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 8:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
>
>
>
> ------Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote------
>
> > ja' qe'San:
> > >In thinking again about this I do want to say I believe that when
> > > aiming/pointing at an object I feel -vaD seems more logical...
> >
> > I don't share your logic. Unless the verb itself targets the
> object (e.g.
> > {puS} "sight"), it seems to me that the thing pointed at does
> not receive
> any
> > effect, either positive or negative, from the action. It's just a
> directional
> > reference -- a spatial concept for which the suffix {-Daq} was intended.
>
> Still taking the example of "I throw my dagger at the tree" If I
> think about
> the path between my dagger  and the tree as a noun (as we are)
> and then for
> the sake of this arguement make that path slightly more solid, than air
> particles, like a piece of string. The dagger may glide along the string
> (like in the old movies). Then what I can say about what is happening is
> that the dagger is 'moving' on/along the path/string. If I was describing
> the movement along a path as I was with, "Raise your betleH to
> (towards) the
> stars" then I believe that -Daq would be and was appropriate because the
> action is being described relative to the path but if the verb I'm using
> something like 'aim', 'point' or 'throw' then the path gains
> nothing but the
> tree will end up with my dagger stuck in it (as long as I keep it
> sharp and
> my aim is good but that's another story). The tree may not consider that a
> benefit but then beneficiary is for good or bad.  Surely that makes the
> appropriate suffix -vaD.  "I throw my dagger for the tree".  Just as in
> speach I would attach -vaD to the intended target.
>
> I believe aim and point fall into this theory because if I was pointing at
> something it would be for example so that another looked along the path
> indicated by my finger.. What are they looking 'for'? They are
> looking 'for'
> whatever I am pointing at.  They don't look 'at' it until their gaze has
> followed the line of my finger to my target. Once they are looking at my
> target then as far as the verb 'look' is concerned their looking is along
> the path from their eye to the target. So I can accept looking at
> (directionally) something as using -Daq. But I would definately point for
> something (-vaD).
>
> >
> > >... and in reference to an action following a spacial
> direction that -Daq
> > > (as I originally used) is more likely applied to lurgh. whether that
> should
> > > apply to anything else, who know ?? (I know.... MO does)
> >
> > Pointing sure sounds like "an action following a spacial
> direction" to me.
> >
> > >"I aim at a planet" can mean either, "in the direction of the planet I
> aim"
> > > or "On the planet I aim".
> >
> > I see exactly the same ambiguity in the suffix {-Daq} and the
> word "at". I
> > don't consider it a problem in either language. This isn't Lojban, you
> know.
> >
> > > However, "I aim for the planet" can mean only one thing.
> >
> > Not so. The phrase "aim for" can mean "head toward", which is
> how I expect
> > you're using it. That meaning is carried in Klingon by using the verb
> {ghoS}.
>
> Are you saying there can only be one way to describe an action
> even when you
> look at something from a different aspect. Aim for doesn't have to include
> any motion in the direction of your aim. I agree anything you fire will
> follow a course (ghoS) but if I don't fire the thing I aim is still aimed.
>
> Back to the dagger "I can aim it for the tree" the dagger once thrown can
> "approach the tree" but if I'm describing the act of throwing  I've got to
> have a two sentences If I want to descibe what happened.
> If I think of "I throw the dagger for the tree" is far more
> concise than "I
> throw the dagger. It approaches the tree". and it doesn't even
> describe any
> intent.
> Additionally "throw the dagger for the tree" doesn't imply it hits or even
> goes in the right direction.  A ferengi after all may "throw his
> dagger for
> the tree" but at the appex of his throwing action and as a result of his
> weak wrist accidentally drop the dagger to his side.  In his mind he may
> have "thrown the dagger for the tree" he failed miserably but
> that was still
> his intention and the only motion was caused by gravity, not towards, not
> away from but down.
>
> "I throw for the tree" describes my action and my intention (what
> I am doing
> it 'for').  It has nothing to do with the motion that may or may
> not happen.
>
> > But there's also the possibility that you're an asteroid tracker working
> for
> > the planetary defense league. :-) This is the "for" that {-vaD} can
> > translate.
> >
> > >Just thought of another English example  "get on the Train for
> work" Why
> can
> > > we use FOR here? I know you can use TO also but I was just trying to
> show a
> > > Possiblilty.
> >
> > This example sounds a bit contrived, and I think you've missed
> the mark a
> > bit. It looks like a Klingon rendition of the idea  would use the *verb*
> > suffix {-meH} "for, in order to" instead of either of the noun suffixes
> that
> > have been discussed.
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
>

Back to archive top level