tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 15 00:05:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
ja' charghwI':
>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.
>[...]
>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}.
KGT page 118: {latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIpang!}
I view this use of {-Daq} as showing the "target" of the pouring, and I'm
absolutely convinced that the explicit object removes {pang} from being
considered as one of those special verbs. The translation "at" seems a
reasonable one for most uses of {-Daq}, including the minor ambiguity that
the English carries with it.
>...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.
I wonder how you reconcile that interpretation with the existence of the
words {tIng} and {'ev} and {chan}.
>...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.
I'm a lot less clear than you are on the distinction you're making between
locations and directions. How would you say something like "walk forward"
if not with a locative?
>> 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".
My interpretation, for what it's worth, is that using "at" implies that the
star is a definite target, and "towards" implies that it's just a
convenient reference point.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh