tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 03 04:40:55 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- From: "Lee Lewis" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:37:29 -0500
- Organization: Klingon Theld of jubchuQun
- References: <[email protected]>
I notice in the subject line the word "batleH". Is this an error? Is it supposed to be "batlh'etlh" ? Or have I missed more in my past 3 years of absence than I thought?
K'Pach
----- Original Message -----
From: William Martin
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
I really think you are fixating on the idea of {-vaD} meaning beneficiary
and ignoring that in the Addendum Okrand told us that {-vaD} is used to mark
the indirect object. This is a broadening of the use of {-vaD} from the
earlier explanation. If it wasn't, then why did he bother to mention it in
the Addendum?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:36 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
>
>
> jIja'pu':
> >...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.
>
> ja' qe'San:
> >Still taking the example of "I throw my dagger at the tree"...
>
> "Still"? That's a new example -- nobody brought up "throw" before. I'll
> agree that "throw" can work like "give", with the thing receiving the
> thrown object taking a {-vaD}. But it doesn't *have* to work that way,
> since an unsuccessful throw doesn't actually end up with the tree
> receiving
> the dagger.
The same could be said of an "unsuccessful" give. You are dodging the fact
that the tree is the indirect object of throwing. I don't care if it is the
beneficiary. I don't care if it is successful or not.
> Using the English phrase "throw at" instead of "throw to"
> implies to me that you're just using the tree as a reference point and not
> as an actual target.
I think you are quibbling. Is the tree, or is it not the indirect object of
throwing? That is what you should be focussing upon.
> "Aim" and "point" don't affect the tree, and I'm still going to reject
> {-vaD} in those cases.
Indirect object. You don't have to be "affected" to be an indirect object.
> Unless you're trying for an idea like "saluting"
> the stars when you raise your betleH toward them, I'm going to reject
> {-vaD} there as well. Again, my argument is that you're using
> the stars as
> a directional reference, nothing more.
I still think the whole stars thing is an unnecessary fixation on using the
wrong tool to do a job. "I can say 'to the stars' in English, so why can't I
say it that way in Klingon?" Sometimes it is just better to rethink the
expression and say something else to convey the substance of what you are
trying to convey.
So, why do you expect a Klingon to be impressed because you are pointing
your betleH, a remarkably short-range weapon at the stars, remarkably
distant targets. I mean, that's more than a little foolish, don't you think?
Meanwhile, if your intent is to salute the stars or to challenge them (Come
down HERE and fight like a WARRIOR, you chicken-shit little points of light!
I DARE you! I'll chop you into little comets and then I'll stomp out your
fire until you are asteroids and then chew you into GRAVEL you cowardly
balls of flaming hydrogen! Just wait 'till I get my ship! I'm comin' at ya!
You can run, but you can't hide!) then it would make a little sense (in a
demented sort of way).
> >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.
>
> I don't follow you. The idea "looking for" doesn't have anything to do
> with aiming or pointing. It has to do with seeking. The Klingon verb for
> this concept is {nej}.
>
> >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.
SoQvam QoymeH tuvchu'bogh tlhIngan vInajlaHbe'. boHchoH 'ej vay' HoH.
> It sounds like you're still stuck on the English word "look",
> where I think
> most of us have agreed that {legh} "see" is more appropriate. There's no
> easy literal Klingon translation for the English phrase "look at".
> Debating whether or not {-Daq} is the right suffix isn't very productive
> when there's no good verb to use in the sentence.
>
> >But I would definately point for something (-vaD).
>
> You're welcome to your opinion. I emphatically disagree with it, however.
>
> >> ...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}.
Waaay off base here. {ghoS} refers to actual motion along a path. It is not
as abstract as aiming or pointing.
Ahh. An opportunity to start a REAL argument:
I aim at that tree. SorvetlhvaD DoSwIj vImojmoH.
Or:
DoSwIj 'oH Sorvetlh'e'.
Sorvetlh vIpuS.
jIqeqmeH SorvetlhvaD jIQeq.
Sorvetlh ngeQ nuHwIj chIch vIneH.
Give me more specifics and I can give you many more ways to say it. It is
not hard to say. It is just hard to say the way you want it said.
> >Are you saying there can only be one way to describe an action
> even when you
> >look at something from a different aspect.
>
> There are many ways to describe an action, but there is usually one way
> that most directly and efficiently expresses a given meaning. For
> following a course, {ghoS} is that way.
>
> >Aim for doesn't have to include
> >any motion in the direction of your aim.
>
> My understanding of "aim for" certainly includes the idea of making
> progress toward the destination, or at least an attempt to make progress.
If you are aiming a ship, this may be true, but if you are aiming a weapon
without any particular interest in subsequently retrieving the weapon or the
target, then this is not at all necessary.
> >I agree anything you fire will
> >follow a course (ghoS) but if I don't fire the thing I aim is
> still aimed.
>
> You have aimed the thing *at* the target. The verb "aim" here has the
> thing aimed as its object. Your "aim for" phrase uses a
> different sense of
> the verb, with the thing moving as the subject and the destination as the
> object.
I agree with this argument.
> >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.
>
> If your intent is to hit the tree: {Sor DaqIpmeH taj Dabach.} Based on
> the way your earlier post used "for work", I think you're getting confused
> with the kind of "for" you want to use. In this case, {-meH} works a lot
> better than {-vaD}, once you get to the intent behind the phrase.
Well said.
> >Additionally "throw the dagger for the tree" doesn't imply it
> hits or even
> >goes in the right direction.
> >[...]
> >"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.
>
> It implies hitting the tree a lot more strongly than "throw at"
> does, in my
> opinion. But it sounds extremely odd to me; I've never heard anyone use
> the "throw for" phrase in English, and I certainly wouldn't say anything
> like it. Perhaps it's a regional thing?
Why worry about "for". {-vaD} does not equate to "for". It can simply mark
the indirect object. Both you guys need to stop fixating on specific wording
of translations for specific words or suffixes. Back out to the concepts of
what you want to say and then choose useful, uncontroversial means of
expressing those concepts instead of fixating on a specific grammatical
tool, determined to use it for a specific function no matter how much
negative feedback you get for doing so.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh