tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 20 14:07:04 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
----- Original Message -----
From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
> jatlh charghwI':
> > >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."
The reason I could see it was because MO used -vaD with regard to speaking
to someone. So it seemed to be appropriate. I didn't really like it in
either use but could see the logic. The person you speak to might not even
be listening but if they are your target then -vaD is attached to them (I
have got that right haven't I?) That logic seems to be similar to that of
pointing/aiming at something.
>
> 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,"
Exactly why I think the logic of -vaD seems to apply. It only because of my
English language that it doesn't feel right. But tlhIngon Hol doesn't work
like English.
> 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.
Just a thought but re: -vaD you can say, "Aim for the Tree!" so why not
"Aim your knife for the tree!" can't you?
>
> 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
qe'San