tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 19 16:42:07 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- From: "TPO" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:41:36 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> > 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.
> > 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?
FINE! so put a *%&*^ pronoun in front of the Dung/tlhop/etc;
The person has an area in front of him; he can hold his blade there.
The person has an area above him; he can hold his blade there.
The person has an area that is in the direction of something else; he can
hold his blade there.
>
> I honestly think you'd be better served with a
> verb that implies a target. {Sor lurghvaD tajlIj yIQeq.}
well damn, you just used the word [lurgh].
So you do agree that the word CAN be used.
>> 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.
??? You apparently misunderstood what I was saying.
I did not say that the locative indicates the target.
YOU try being on a star and raise your betleH. You wouldn't survive.
In the sentence [HovDaq betleH pep] the action takes place on the star. But
it couldn't because the person would be dead. ***In the English*** the
betleH is not in or on the star, nor is the person, thus that sentence would
not work. Thus lurgh.
(last message in this thread)
DloraH