tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 23 13:02:58 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....

ja' qe'San:
>In thinking again about this I do want to say I believe that when
> aiming/pointing at an object I feel -vaD seems more logical...

I don't share your logic. Unless the verb itself targets the object (e.g.
{puS} "sight"), it seems to me that the thing pointed at does not receive any
effect, either positive or negative, from the action. It's just a directional
reference -- a spatial concept for which the suffix {-Daq} was intended.

>... and in reference to an action following a spacial direction that -Daq
> (as I originally used) is more likely applied to lurgh. whether that should
> apply to anything else, who know ?? (I know.... MO does)

Pointing sure sounds like "an action following a spacial direction" to me.

>"I aim at a planet" can mean either, "in the direction of the planet I aim"
> or "On the planet I aim".

I see exactly the same ambiguity in the suffix {-Daq} and the word "at". I
don't consider it a problem in either language. This isn't Lojban, you know.


> However, "I aim for the planet" can mean only one thing.

Not so. The phrase "aim for" can mean "head toward", which is how I expect
you're using it. That meaning is carried in Klingon by using the verb {ghoS}.
But there's also the possibility that you're an asteroid tracker working for
the planetary defense league. :-) This is the "for" that {-vaD} can
translate.

>Just thought of another English example  "get on the Train for work" Why can
> we use FOR here? I know you can use TO also but I was just trying to show a
> Possiblilty.

This example sounds a bit contrived, and I think you've missed the mark a
bit. It looks like a Klingon rendition of the idea  would use the *verb*
suffix {-meH} "for, in order to" instead of either of the noun suffixes that
have been discussed.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level