tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 05 01:07:15 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 8:35 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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..???
My listing just says that {qang} means "pour" while {lIch}, which
ghunchu'wI' mentions below, means "pour (into/onto anything)". I had never
thought about it before, but just looking at these glosses, I'd expect to
say, "I pour the water into the glass," as:
bIQ vIqangmeH HIvje' vIlIch.}
It sounds an awful lot like the difference between {ja'} and {jatlh}. The
verbs are basically identical except for the nouns one would use for the
direct object.
Do others find this an interesting idea? Okrand seems to like this sort of
pairing of verbs describing the same action, but calling for different
direct objects.
charghwI'
> 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
>
>