tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 16 03:07:29 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
----- Original Message -----
From: William Martin <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
> 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),
First things first. My intention was a general victory cry type instruction
to all Klingons and maybe everyone else as well. ie the direction will be
different to everyone. especially as some could even be in different parts
of the galaxy. But wherever they were there would always be a "direction of
the stars" personal to them..
> or
> does it refer to the direction of motion (the bearing) of the stars?
That would be up to the context of the rest of the sentence.. In this case
it was "raising an object" by a person. Whether the perosn was moving
sitting standing . again is irrelevant as it was a generalised
command/statement that would apply to the listener's relevant situation. In
my mind I was standing on top of a mound I had just helped to regain, the
flag had been planted and then carrying out the command myself cry out (for
all to hear) "Raise your betleH to stars and proclaim victory for all who
have honour".. Being Klingon that honour may apply to my enemies if their
honour is intact.
> 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.
Exactly
>
> 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,
I thought Okrand often implies that context is everything. A generalised
statement to everyone would be interpreted to match their own situation.
All would be following the command/request and all would be correct as that
was the intention... the direction of the stars to someone on the North pole
would be the opposite to a person standing on the South pole.. Both would
interpret the command to their situation and both would be correct.
> 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.
Again its down to context. sometimes is is necessary to say more if a
sentence may be misunderstood. Just as your english example of Krankor's
direction could have been misunderstood.. Does it make an English statement
wrong because it could be misunderstood.. How many canon Klingon sentences
have more than one possible meaning. The full meaning should come from
context or how its commonly used.
As to Krankors direction it depends on what I might want to say.. and what
else was in the sentence.. Lets say " I turn in Krankors direction"
Qanqor lurghDaq jItlhe''egh
Would this mean I turn to face his location or turn to face the same
direction he is facing. I believe it would mean the first. But thats not to
say the second wouldn't be correct. Or maybe to say that I would have
said.
Qanqor lurghDaq vIrapmeH jItlhe''egh.
I hope Igot that correct. If not hopefully you will understand what I meant
to say.
> 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?
There are many different contexts here and each is correct in the right
situation depend ing who you are talking to.
> 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 agree it would be nice to have a usage for all words given but does that
mean that we don't use words where we have no examples or do we come to some
conclusion until such time as MO gives us examples.. He may never do so.
> I do not yet find {lurgh}
> particularly useful.
I think it is very useful where context supplies meaning.
>
> This is definitely going on my Wish List for Okrand for qep'a'.
Oh please. I just wish I could be there.
>
> > 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
>
>