tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 08 02:29:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
>----- Original Message -----
>From: William Martin <[email protected]>
>
> I agree with your interpretation of TKD on {-Daq}. The HolQeD you seek is
> v7n4. It's the interview with Okrand.
>
> charghwI'
>
But can I use
Hovmey lurghDaq betleHlIj Dapep
for Raise your Batleth to (towards) the stars ????
The question moved onto become whether one can use -Daq to imply that the
action occurs "to the marked noun". Although a valid question what I've
missed is whether or not I can mark "spatial direction of the stars" and
possibly prior to that whether I can use lurgh at all in this way..
i.e. Does "Hovmey lurgh" mean "spatial direction of the stars"... Is that a
valid combination. If it is then I should be able to mark it with -Daq but
then what does that mean ?? I want to use it to communicate that I'm
suggesting someone carries out an action at a specific place with the only
conditional feature of that place being a direction. That specific place is
a variable and non essential as long as the action is in a particular
direction.. Further to that the action does not need to have any intention
in reaching the stars.
> De'vId wrote:
> How about just /HovmeyDaq/? /Hovmey lurghDaq/ seems a bit redundant.
If it's redudant because its obvious I'm not going to thrust into the stars
then how would I say, " Raise your Batleth towards the ceiling" ??
Does lurgh even need a locative to become the indirect object??
What would be the difference of saying "I point at the star" and "I point
towards the star".
The direction of the action is identical but the first is a direction where
'I can see where the target is' and the second where 'I know where the
target is' (whether I can see it or not)
qe'San
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Ruehlaender [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:35 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
> >
> >
> > ja' charghwI':
> > > I think this is a matter of debate. We know that at least in most
cases,
> > > adding {-Daq} to a noun implies that the noun relates to the
> > location of the
> > > action. Some argue that it also can imply, as you do, that it can be
the
> > > target of the action, but I think that's shaky ground, and by a little
> > > recasting, it is unnecessary.
> > >
> > I always read TKD 3.3.5 this way. Am I reading too much into
> > the possibility of translating -Daq by "to", then? Does this
> > only apply when it (redundantly) marks the direct object of
> > verbs of movement?
> >
> > IIRC, {DujDaq vIjaH} means "I'm going to the ship." vs
> > {DujDaq jIjaH} "I'm going on the ship." (I have a hard time
> > finding the HolQeD issue that covered this)
> >
> > Marc Ruehlaender
> > aka HomDoq
> > [email protected]
> >
>