tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 23 17:19:30 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
------Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote------
> 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.
Still taking the example of "I throw my dagger at the tree" If I think about
the path between my dagger and the tree as a noun (as we are) and then for
the sake of this arguement make that path slightly more solid, than air
particles, like a piece of string. The dagger may glide along the string
(like in the old movies). Then what I can say about what is happening is
that the dagger is 'moving' on/along the path/string. If I was describing
the movement along a path as I was with, "Raise your betleH to (towards) the
stars" then I believe that -Daq would be and was appropriate because the
action is being described relative to the path but if the verb I'm using
something like 'aim', 'point' or 'throw' then the path gains nothing but the
tree will end up with my dagger stuck in it (as long as I keep it sharp and
my aim is good but that's another story). The tree may not consider that a
benefit but then beneficiary is for good or bad. Surely that makes the
appropriate suffix -vaD. "I throw my dagger for the tree". Just as in
speach I would attach -vaD to the intended target.
I believe aim and point fall into this theory because if I was pointing at
something it would be for example so that another looked along the path
indicated by my finger.. What are they looking 'for'? They are looking 'for'
whatever I am pointing at. They don't look 'at' it until their gaze has
followed the line of my finger to my target. Once they are looking at my
target then as far as the verb 'look' is concerned their looking is along
the path from their eye to the target. So I can accept looking at
(directionally) something as using -Daq. But I would definately point for
something (-vaD).
>
> >... 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}.
Are you saying there can only be one way to describe an action even when you
look at something from a different aspect. Aim for doesn't have to include
any motion in the direction of your aim. I agree anything you fire will
follow a course (ghoS) but if I don't fire the thing I aim is still aimed.
Back to the dagger "I can aim it for the tree" the dagger once thrown can
"approach the tree" but if I'm describing the act of throwing I've got to
have a two sentences If I want to descibe what happened.
If I think of "I throw the dagger for the tree" is far more concise than "I
throw the dagger. It approaches the tree". and it doesn't even describe any
intent.
Additionally "throw the dagger for the tree" doesn't imply it hits or even
goes in the right direction. A ferengi after all may "throw his dagger for
the tree" but at the appex of his throwing action and as a result of his
weak wrist accidentally drop the dagger to his side. In his mind he may
have "thrown the dagger for the tree" he failed miserably but that was still
his intention and the only motion was caused by gravity, not towards, not
away from but down.
"I throw for the tree" describes my action and my intention (what I am doing
it 'for'). It has nothing to do with the motion that may or may not happen.
> 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'
>