tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 18 13:15:38 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: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:15:21 -0400
- Importance: Normal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TPO [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: None
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
...
> You keep using ghoS. Sure, with ghoS, lurgh doesn't do very much.
Well, at least we are getting SOMEwhere. Now, you are saying that your
intended use of {lurgh} doesn't work with {ghoS}. This is a new statement. I
can work with that.
> >Meanwhile, to get back to the original question, I do not believe that
> >"raise"/pep is a verb that behaves like {ghoS}. I do not believe
> that it can
> >have a target as its direct object. The direct object is the thing one is
> >raising. So, if you use a locative with that verb, then the
> locative is not
> >a direct object. It is just a locative. As such, it tells you
> the location
> >where the action of the verb occurs.
> >
> >Add to it that the verb already implies deixis, since you can't raise
> >something unless you have a gravitational field to oppose or something we
> >can agree on as a floor or ground or equivalent to move the object away
> >from. pep = bIngvo' DungDaq vay' vIHmoHlu'. Talking about direction is
> >uncharacteristically redundant with this verb. I suspect that
> the original
> >poster of this question chooses to add "toward the stars" to
> imply distance
> >and enthusiasm and not direction. "Raise your betleHmey REALLY, REALLY
> >HIGH!" For that, {pepchu'} would be better than getting all tangled up in
> >{Hovmey lurghDaq}.
>
> I agree that to lift something there is also gravity to imply which way is
> up. But you don't have to lift something straight up. You can lift
> something and be holding it out to your side.
Meanwhile, I doubt that would be called {pepchu'}.
> DungDaq betleH pep - the betleH is raised in the area above the subject.
You've made an interesting assumption. By my perspective, you have not
revealed which potential {Dung} you are talking about. The subject? The
speaker? The listener? It isn't clear. There isn't really a global {Dung},
since no matter how high you go, something else can be higher.
> retlhDaq betleH pep - the betleH is raised in the area next to
> the subject.
Again, you make an assumption with little to justify it.
> tlhopDaq betleH pep - the betleH is raised in the area in front
> of the subject.
Why the subject?
> As you say, the action is in the area of the locative; above the person,
> next to the person, in front of the person.
If you were more explicit about the locative, I'd agree.
> HovDaq betleH pep - the betleH is not in or on the star.
I disagree. "On the star, he raises the betleH." This is definitely a valid
interpretation of this sentence, and if we go by canon, this would be the
most easily justified interpretation. You have to make a leap not justified
by canon to assume that the locative indicates the target of the raising and
not the location of the raising. I'm not sure that this leap is wrong, but I
am sure that any certainty that this leap is correct is unjustified. It's
certainly unnecessary.
> Hov lurghDaq betleH pep - lurgh is an area of space just like Dung and
> tlhop. Dung is always above, tlhop is always in front; lurgh is that area
> that is located in relation to the n1.
I'd feel better about this is we had any canon examples of its use. There's
an assumption here that is yelling so loudly that it begs for reply lest it
go uncontested. We don't quite know how {lurgh} is to be used.
> Now in reference to stars I can see your arguement. The stars are
> everywhere, and your really saying lift it high; so yes, pepchu' would be
> good for this.
And what about the whole way I put it. I actually thought it worked pretty
well:
betlhlIj yIpep! Hovmey yIqaD!
> How about:
>
> SorDaq taj yI'uch - I'm telling you to be AT/IN the tree and hold
> the knife.
That, or just hold the knife up against the tree while you stand next to the
tree on the ground. The action of holding happens at the tree. That may or
may not mean the subject is in the tree.
> DungDaq taj yI'uch - hold the knife above.
Above what? I would tend to assume you mean "Above you and me" assuming that
we are on similar levels.
> tlhopDaq taj yI'uch - hold the knife in front.
In front of you, or in front of me? Are we facing the same direction?
> Sor lurghDaq taj yI'uch - hold the knife towards the tree.
The problem I have here is that the verb {'uch} does not imply any kind of
target. Given that, the action is supposed to happen in a place. So, what
place really is the direction of the tree? How far toward the tree am I
supposed to walk, holding this knife? And is the tree's direction to be
measured from me or from you? I honestly think you'd be better served with a
verb that implies a target. {Sor lurghvaD tajlIj yIQeq.}
This gives you more expressive versitility.
chanlIjDaq Sor lurghvaD tajlIj yIQeq. The direction really is the indirect
object here. The locative is "to your East".
Or {yotlhwIjDaq Sor lurghvaD tajlIj yIQeq.} Be in my field and point your
knife in the tree's direction.
> DloraH
charghwI'