tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 11:36:50 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:36:14 EDT
vIghItlhpu' quljIb:
>I been following this whole discussion, and I must say that to a begginer
>(me) the phrase <Hovmey lurgh> makes perfect sense for "to(ward) the stars".
ja' pagh:
> I believe that your "beginner's sense" is missing something. The word
> {lurgh} just means "direction", and does not necessarily imply "to" or
> "toward". For the spatial meanings of "to" or "toward", {-Daq} has the
> right meaning.
Exactly. "The stars' direction." The spatial relationship can be inferred
from <pep>.
quljIb:
>Further, what with all the ambiguity of <-Daq>, if a Type 5 Suffix must be
>used, then <-vaD> is the logical choice.
pagh:
> {-vaD} is only the logical choice when you're talking about a beneficiary.
> There's no beneficiary apparent to me in "toward the stars".
To quote qeSan:
> "Before someone brings it up re my previous message. Yes I know that in
> TKD6.8 MO stated that, "the object of the verb is the recipient of the
> action, the direct object may be considered the beneficiary." I also
> know that I've gone and used the word "recipient" to try and
> distinguish between the way some people were using beneificiary to mean
> something that benifits. I shouldn't have used recipient in this
> context but reiterated that an iderect object can be the benificiary of
> s unbenificial action.
>
> "In thinking again about this I do want to say I believe that when
> aiming/pointing at an object I feel -vaD seems more logical and in
> reference to an action following a spacial direction that -Daq (as I
> originally used) is more likely applied to lurgh. whether that should
> apply to anything else, who know ?? (I know.... MO does)
>
> "I aim at a planet" can mean either, "in the direction of the planet I
> aim" or "On the planet I aim". However, "I aim for the planet" can mean
> only one thing.
I'm well aware that this has not been established as canon (that's why we all
are having this lengthy discussion), but it seemed to me rather unambiguious.
quljIb:
<<Hovmey lurghvaD betleHraj yIpep>> 'oH mu'tlhegh lurgh. net Sov Hoch.
What I meant to say:
<<Hovmey lurgh(vaD) beteHraj yIpep>> 'oH mu'tlhegh.
The <net Sov Hoch> was meant to convey "Everyone knows that!" (I was being
slightly sarcastic with that one.)
pagh:
> While the phrase in <<..>> marks is grammatically acceptable, I disagree
> completely with using {-vaD} here, and {betleHraj yIpep} is a bit odd.
> You're commanding whoever you're addressing to raise a single betleH which
> belongs to multiple people. Saying either {betleHraj tIpep} or {betleHlIj
> yIpep} works better in my brain.
*sigh* "...Unlike English, however, the lack of specific suffix for plural
does not mean that the noun [i.e., <betleH>] is singular. In Klingon, a noun
without a plural suffix may still refer to more than one entity. The
plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a verb prefix or a full word, or
by context." If I'd wanted to write <betleHlIj>, I'd have written
<betleHlIj>.
quljIb