tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 20 17:50:14 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- From: qe'San - Jon Brown <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
---"David Trimboli" <[email protected] wrote: >
Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
>
>
> > > /-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.
>
> As I said, I can see the logic, but I think that the spatial concept
> is the most important here, as opposed to speaking, where there is no
> spatial concept to consider. You aim your knife in a manner which >
refers to the direction of the tree. You don't speak in a manner >
which refers to the direction of the speaker. The speaker is the >
beneficiary of your speech, not the target. We're using "target" in a
> strictly spatial sense.
Sorry here but I've been seperating the two issues of
"spatial direction" and whether to -Daq, -vaD or none. I was just
tackling the latter issue. When I started this thread I considered both
issues I wasn't sure of.. I had used lurgh because I was thinking
"spatial direct of the stars" would be [Hovmey lurgh]. Because I
wanted to then say that something was happening in that direction I
used -Daq.
I can see where this could be misconstrude and possibly incorrect. Who
knows what MO will do or say next apart from him. I was considering the
logic being discussed and could see that (now using your word) If the
"direction to somwhere" was the 'beneficiary' of an action. For an
example of what I mean: A traffic Route is not something physical but
it exists. A traffic analyst might consider a route to be a beneficiery
of traffic following that route.. The difference here is that if I
used the word beneficiery here it is lurgh that it applies to not the
target.
> You're using it to mean "beneficiary."
Not really. If I was talking about the tree itself I'd rather call it
the "recipient".
>
> Now, if you want to go and say that the tree is the beneficiary of
> your aiming the knife, I won't try to argue against it. I'll simply
> disagree.
I can't say I won't argue as here I am. But as I said above I wouldn't
call the tree a beneficiary as I couldn't see what benefit it will get
just as I can think of many occassions when I wasn't the beneficiary of
someones "tongue" but rather the recipient.
I've seen reference on some replies to the -Daq applying to the first
noun and not the lurgh but I thought that only applied when it was
attached to a verb acting adjectively on the noun as in "at the white
House". Here I have been using two nouns Hovmey and lurgh translated
as either "Stars Direction" or "Direction of the Stars". The way I used
it also made the Direction of the Stars as the indirect object of the
sentence ("Raise your BatleH in the Direction of the Stars"). The
recipient is the Direction of the Stars" not the Stars and I have never
been suggesting otherwise.
>
> > > 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.
>
> So you believe that the tree is the beneficiary of your aiming the
> knife?
Recipient.
>
> > 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?
>
> Indeed, I had thought of that, which is one of the reasons why I say
> I see the logic of the argument.
>
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 470.7
>
qe'San
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/