tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 13 21:26:41 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: qe'San (Jon Brown) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 5:26 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 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 whole point of the response is to say that we have no assurance that
this is correct use of the locative suffix. There are many less
controversial ways to express this, but you have what seems to be a little
bit of a stubborn fixation on expressing it this way and getting
confirmation that it is okay.
Well, I can't confirm that it is okay. I can't be absolutely certain that it
is wrong, but I can be certain that the whole issue can be avoided by
recasting with something that is not as uncertain.
> 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..
The thing that we know is correct about the use of {-Daq} is that it
definitely can indicate the location or area where an action occurs.
Meanwhile, you are not talking about the action of raising occurring in the
area of the stars. You are talking about the action of raising occuring
TOWARD the stars, and I don't know of any canon use of {-Daq} or any
explanation by Okrand of how {-Daq} works to agree with your interpretation.
So, if we can't be sure {-Daq} works that way, what CAN we be sure of? Well,
we have the nouns {DoS} and {ray'} which are likely useful here. You want us
to raise our betleHmey. You want us to aim them. The stars are our targets.
What I don't understand is why you immediately dismiss this suggestion in
order to return to your request to be reassured that you can use {-Daq} in a
way nobody can reassure you it can be used. I'm sure if you ask enough
times, someone will reassure you, or maybe you can just keep asking, but if
you are asking ME, I'm not going to lie to you and say that I believe the
language allows you to do what you are trying to do with it. I honestly
believe that this is one of those areas where Okrand was trying to make
Klingon very different from English.
He has stated explicitly that {-Daq} can't be used in all the abstract ways
that we use the prepositions it most often replaces. We can run IN a city,
but we can't (using {-Daq}) be IN agreement, for example. Meanwhile, the
other odd thing about {-Daq} is that it refers to the location WHERE THE
ACTION HAPPENS. The only time that it works in terms of a target of an
action is when it is completely optional on a special group of verbs that
behave like {ghoS} and {jaH}. If we use {-Daq} with a noun in front of one
of these verbs and the verb has a "no object" prefix, like {jI-}, then
{-Daq} has its usual meaning. The "going" is occurring "at" the location of
the noun. Meanwhile, if that same verb has a prefix that indicates a third
person object and the noun with {-Daq} appears to be that object, then its
location is the target of the motion.
Thinking about this, I strongly suspect that {lurgh} is the kind of abstract
that can't take {-Daq}. It is not a noun that has a location. It is an
abstract of the concept of location that is missing a measurement of
distance; a vector without quantity.
Meanwhile, I don't think many people would support the argument that {pep}
is one of those verbs that behaves like this. You are already using {betleH}
as the direct object of {pep}, so you can't use {HovmeyDaq} as the direct
object of the verb, and if it is not the direct object, then it is the
locative, and the locative is not the target of the action. It is the
LOCATION of the action. It is the spacial environment of the action.
I wish I could express this more clearly. I'm rusty. I apologize.
> 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 ??
That's an interesting question. This may very well work. Unfortunately, I
don't think we have any canon examples of the use of {lurgh} to go by.
But again, the action does not occur in the area of the direction of the
stars. The direction is the bearing of the target. It implies aiming again,
and that's not really a locative. It is a kind of prepositional concept I'd
expect to exist in Klingon only in the form of a special relationship
between specific verbs and their direct objects in the way that {bav} or
{'el} have prepositional relationships to their direct objects.
> 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.
You seem to be describing "aiming" and the stars are the "targets" of that
aiming. In ST3, there was an order that Kruge gave to his gunner. "Target
engines only!" That would have been a perfect example if Okrand had actually
written it that way instead of it being a fudged outtake of the line, "I
wanted prisoners." Or was the outtake the other way around? I forget.
Where's voragh when I really need him. paS rep. jIQongnIS. jIDoy'bej.
> > 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" ??
It is redundant because "raising" already implies "upwards", which is toward
the stars or ceiling or whatever else happens to be above you. It's sort of
like saying in English, "Fall to the ground until gravity doesn't pull you
any farther because you are already pressed against the ground." Well,
that's sort of what falling IS. You don't fall up and you don't raise
something downward. These verbs, "fall" and "raise" already have a spacial
reference built in. You don't need to be redundant about it.
> Does lurgh even need a locative to become the indirect object??
A locative is not a direct object. It is a locative. It is the place where a
thing happens.
> 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)
I am uncertain that a large sampling of objective people would agree with
your interpretation of the difference between "I point at the star" and "I
point towards the star".
> 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]
> > >
> >
>