tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 10 22:48:22 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: pouring (was RE: Deixis and direction)
All this makes sense to me. ghaytan bIlughchu'. It would be nice to get a
little more clarity from Okrand on these things. Something for the wish
list, I suppose.
charghwI'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 5:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: pouring (was RE: Deixis and direction)
>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >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.}
>
> You've constructed this as if {lIch} meant "pour into/onto (something)",
> with the locative words included in the core meaning of the verb. I don't
> believe that's what the parenthetical words are intended to imply.
>
> >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.
>
> The way I read it, the difference between {qang} and {lIch} is that {qang}
> *must* have a container involved as both source and target, and {lIch} has
> no such restriction. The word "onto" in the definition of {lIch} tells me
> that {voDleH nachDaq 'awje' vIlIch} is a legal and appropriate sentence
> (the activity itself might be neither, of course). The object of both
> verbs looks like it's the same thing: the substance being poured.
>
>