tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 15 11:11:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- From: [email protected] (William Martin)
- Subject: RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:08:54 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
I have to agree with SuStel that I find {lurghDaq} confusing. I'm not sure
it is wrong, meanwhile, I'm also quite unsure that it actually means what
the speaker intends for it to mean.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 4:57 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
>
>
> jIjatlh:
> >>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.
>
> jatlh DloraH:
> >How is this different from Dung, bIng, Dop, tlhop, 'em, 'et,
> 'o', poS, nIH?
> >
> >"You can stand anywhere and.." tlhop is still tlhop, etc.
>
> Quite true!
>
> Let me put it another way. All of these words, and those like
> /chan/, etc.,
> are "area <specify direction here>." Thus, /Dung/ "area above." On the
> other hand, /lurgh/ has nothing to do with an area, even when described as
> /Hovmey lurgh/. The question is, can /-Daq/ refer to a direction
> instead of
> an area?
Exactly. Does {Hovmey lurgh} imply deixis (the direction I point when I
point to the stars, or [differently] the direction someone a quarter
rotation away from me on my planet when they point to the same stars), or
does it refer to the direction of motion (the bearing) of the stars? If the
speaker and the listener are sufficiently distant from the target to change
the compass angle of the location of the target from the two observers, that
implies three different possible directions.
It may be simpler than I'm seeing it. Certainly Okrand's use of {chanDaq}
and other compass related directional terms as locatives suggests that
perhaps this is simple, after all. My problem is that we have not been told
that the noun {lurgh} has a specific type of deixis related to it. When you
speak of a noun's direction, does that mean it's direction from the speaker,
its global direction from anybody (which is remarkably similar to its
location, making the word {lurgh} quite unnecessary), or its direction of
travel? Add that if I speak of Krankor's direction and you see him sitting
in profile, playing his leSpal, am I referring to the direction he is
facing, even if he is not moving? Magnify this. If you look at an entire
army assembled in profile, ready to march. They are north of you, facing
East, and I'm East of them. If I speak via communicator to you of the army's
direction, am I talking about North, East or West? They are West of me,
North of you, facing East. Which of these things are their direction? Now,
imagine that as part of their exercise, they uniformly step to their right
so the entire army is moving South, while facing East. Now, their direction
might be North, South, East or West, depending on the specific meaning that
{lurgh} is supposed to refer to. I argue that unlike {chanDaq}, we have not
had this definition sufficiently explained to us. I do not yet find {lurgh}
particularly useful.
This is definitely going on my Wish List for Okrand for qep'a'.
> I don't particularly have an answer. I'm not going to be too confused if
> someone uses this.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 528.1
charghwI'
Stardate 538.6