tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 03 17:35:44 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Deixis and direction



ja'pu' qe'San:
>I thought [qang] meant "pour from one thing to another/decant"..  wouldn't
>that (and this is a question) mean that if a target of the pouring was
>specified it would be the indirect object of the sentence with the direct
>object, if specified, being the liquid..???

ja' SuStel:
>Thanks, qe'San.  You've helped me to illustrate one of my points: that our
>understanding of Klingon is going to be inextricably tied in with our
>understanding of English (or whatever your native language happens to be).
>
>bIQ vIqang.
>I pour the water.
>
>I can't disagree with the idea that pouring can be done for an indirect
>object, so I'll add the following non-object, non-subject noun:
>
>HIvje'vaD bIQ vIqang.
>
>I'm not entirely certain I like that.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but it
>certainly strikes me as icky.

It's grammatically valid, though its apparent meaning isn't something I'd
expect to encounter very often.

Using a typical English rendition of an idea with an indirect object, I get
"I pour the cup the water."  For a sentence with {-vaD} and {qang}, I'd
much sooner expect something like {Duy'a'vaD ra'taj vIqang}  "I pour the
ambassador a raktajino."  [The only reason I'm not cringing at {qang}
instead of {lIch} here is because the idea of pouring a cup of coffee is
rather stereotyped as including a coffeepot and coffee cup, thus making
"pour (between containers)" somewhat reasonable.]

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh




Back to archive top level