tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 12:03:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 14:03:02 CDT
jIjatlh:
> > IMO, one cannot be ordered to "see" something one doesn't see.
> > Any command to have a sensation is semantically void.
>
jang charghwI':
> I think we are having a cultural problem here as much as a grammatical one.
> "See this! Taste this! Smell this! Feel this!" These are all quite
> symantically valid.
>
that is because they are not commands to have a sensation.
they are commands to direct the attention of the appropriate
sensory organ.
> > In English you "should" say "Look at the statue!", "Look at Spot
> > runnning!"
>
> I simply disagree. Both verbs are valid in their own right, but the big
> difference between them is that "see" is transitive and "look" is
> intransitive. You don't look anything. You just look. You do see things. You
> look at the things you see, but that adds an unnecessary preposition which
> is exactly what is confusing this whole issue.
>
the trouble IMO is, that "see" not only means "receive optical
information on retina and interpret in brain" but also "point
your eyes in this direction, so that you can receive some interesting
optical information on your retina for your brain to interpret"
I hope this rather longwinded example clears up what I mean
> > "See Spot run!" works, but "He sees Spot run." doesn't mean the
> > same as "He looks at Spot running." at all.
>
> You are basically arguing that these are different:
>
> qet Spot 'e' legh.
>
> qetbogh Spot legh.
>
no. that's not my point.
> or maybe you are referring to
>
> Spot legh qetbogh loD.
>
neither.
> Your English sentence is a little ambiguous.
>
I meant "Spot is running. He is seeing that."
as opposed to "He can't see it."
versus "Spot is running. He looks at that scene."
as opposed to "But he's looking at the ball."
> > That said, I repeat that probably {Hew yIbej!} is the right way to
> > say "Look at the statue!", or is it?
>
> It works quite well.
thank you :)
> It does have the connotation for me that some change is
> expected soon or that I'm somehow expected to have some sort of response
> when some change occurs, since that is usually why you watch things. I can
> see a photograph, for example, but it would be very strange to watch a
> photograph. Meanwhile, if I tell you to see the woman standing over there, I
> may just want you to enjoy the stylish helmet she's wearing, while if I tell
> you to watch the woman over there, there is a sense of expectation that the
> viewing will occur over a span of time and that the thing one watches for is
> some sort of change.
>
I agree, I wouldn't use {bej} to convey "looking at" a photograph
or the stylish skirt of Mr. Speight.
probably something involving {buS}
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]