tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 14 16:26:27 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
Does a direction have a location? well yes I believe it does relative to
who to who ever is considering it. It has an infinately variable location
when you consider all possiblities. eg concider the saying "all roads lead
to Rome".. Wherever you are, your direction to Rome is diferent to everyone
else except those you are in direct line with you and Rome.
A road as is just a predefined and marked out direction. and yet its easy
to consider the concept of any action at/on the road requiring a locative.
Why because we can see it and define it just as we can a room or obviously
visible thing. You can be on the road with out having to follow it.. Hence
I believe you can be "on" a direction. without having to be performing any
action. However if you are carrying out an action whilst on the road would
you not use -Daq. If so what is the difference between carrying out an
action on a road or on a direction.
In trying to further break down the difference look at the old concept of a
road it dodn't even have to have any constructed surface..ie It is no more
than a direction. Later versions may of had markers every few miles but
that was it. A surface was added to speed transportation and limit wear of
a commonly used direction.
I can walk on it. I can run on it, and any time soon I may jump up and down
on it. Whatever I "DO" I do it at a loaction
So rather than thinking of -Daq in this concept as only being "in the
direction" maybe consider "on the direction". You might not saying it
english that much but its possibly easier to apply to "direction-Daq" when
having a problem with "in"... e.g. 'On the co-ordinates of the home planet'
'on the road to Damascus'. At the end of the day -Daq can translate into
either.
qe'San
----- Original Message -----
From: TPO <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 9:19 PM
Subject: 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