tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 11 13:21:08 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....



>>While TKD 3.3.5 Syntactic markers clearly explains that ghunchu'wI' is
>>correct that
>>{-Daq} is the correct type 5 for "to, at, in, on," and the original author is
>>correct that two nouns may form a noun-noun compound (recently elsewhere
>>referred to as genitive, per sé for this topic) with noun 1 possessing noun
>>2, producing {Hovmey lurgh} for "stars' direction," we can add both concepts
>>together now to give {Hovmey lurghDaq} "to the stars' direction."  Does this
>>not mean "toward the stars"?
>
>
>I think the matter in question is whether it makes sense to talk about the
>"location" of a particular "direction."  A direction does not have a
>location.  Assuming an infinite plane, you can stand anywhere and north is
>still north.

How is this different from Dung, bIng, Dop, tlhop, 'em, 'et, 'o', poS, nIH?

"You can stand anywhere and.." tlhop is still tlhop, etc.

In relation to the subject, those terms are constants.
In relation to the subject, the lurgh of something can be a variable.  It
could coincide with 'et, or poS.

To the subject, chan, 'ev and tIng are variable; sometimes chan can be 'et,
sometimes it can be at nIH.
To the subject's location chan is a constant.  chan is always chan.

To the subject's location, the lurgh of something could still be a variable.


DloraH



Back to archive top level