tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 19 09:56:22 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:55:59 CDT
> > > >HewDaq jIlegh.
> > > >I look at the statue.
>
jatlh charghwI':
> Yuck. Would you also say {jaghDaq jISuv.}? Or how about {HIqDaq jItlhutlh.}
> You have added {-Daq} for no reason. {Hew vIlegh} is what you wanted. The
> statue is the simple direct object of "see". {legh} doesn't mean "look". It
> means "see". There's a difference. Yes, you might "look at" a statue, but
> you don't "see at" a statue. You just see it.
>
> I'd think she was some alien doing a piss poor job of speaking Klingon. That
> obviously should be {Hew yIlegh! vIHtaH!}
>
> charghwI'
>
alright, I'm going to backoff a little (mainly because I'll take a vacation
soon :) and agree that {legh} probably isn't the right verb to chose here.
however, I believe, that if you use it in imperative mode, as in {yIlegh},
you are essentially using it with the "look" meaning, too.
IMO, one cannot be ordered to "see" something one doesn't see.
Any command to have a sensation is semantically void.
In English you "should" say "Look at the statue!", "Look at Spot runnning!"
That "See!" can double up for this meaning is essentially a result of its
not making sense otherwise.
"See Spot run!" works, but "He sees Spot run." doesn't mean the
same as "He looks at Spot running." at all.
That said, I repeat that probably {Hew yIbej!} is the right way to
say "Look at the statue!", or is it?
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]