tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 20 11:19:58 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
jatlh charghwI':
> > 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.}
jatlh qe'San:
> I can see -vaD being used like that maybe you've got it.
I can see the reasoning, but I don't think it's best. Qiute simply, /Sor
lurgh/ is supposed to be a noun phrase describing a spatial concept, a
direction. Give it /-Daq/.
/-vaD/ does not mean target, although it might be a noun indicating a
target. It means "beneficiary," whether of good or bad. /Sor lurghvaD
tajlIj yIQeq/ "Aim your knife, the beneficiary is the direction of the
tree." I don't like it. /Sor lurghDaq tajlIj yIQeq/ "Aim your knife, the
location is the direction of the tree."
But then, I'd accept simply /SorDaq tajlIj yIQeq/ "Aim your knife, the
location is the tree." Yes, one might interpret this as "Aim your knife
while standing next to the tree" instead of "Aim your knife at the tree,"
but context should make the correct interpretation plain. Besides, even in
English, "Aim your knife at the tree" could be interpreted by someone
twisted as "Stand next to the tree and aim your knife (at something)." It
just doesn't mean that normally; the context will tell.
I'm not incredibly opposed to /HovDaq betleH yIpep/. It's not clear, but
neither is it ungrammatical. But I definitely don't like using /-vaD/
instead of /-Daq/ for what is clearly best served with a spatial reference.
SuStel
Stardate 470.3