tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 27 19:37:28 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
jIja'pu':
>...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.
ja' qe'San:
>Still taking the example of "I throw my dagger at the tree"...
"Still"? That's a new example -- nobody brought up "throw" before. I'll
agree that "throw" can work like "give", with the thing receiving the
thrown object taking a {-vaD}. But it doesn't *have* to work that way,
since an unsuccessful throw doesn't actually end up with the tree receiving
the dagger. Using the English phrase "throw at" instead of "throw to"
implies to me that you're just using the tree as a reference point and not
as an actual target.
"Aim" and "point" don't affect the tree, and I'm still going to reject
{-vaD} in those cases. Unless you're trying for an idea like "saluting"
the stars when you raise your betleH toward them, I'm going to reject
{-vaD} there as well. Again, my argument is that you're using the stars as
a directional reference, nothing more.
>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.
I don't follow you. The idea "looking for" doesn't have anything to do
with aiming or pointing. It has to do with seeking. The Klingon verb for
this concept is {nej}.
>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.
It sounds like you're still stuck on the English word "look", where I think
most of us have agreed that {legh} "see" is more appropriate. There's no
easy literal Klingon translation for the English phrase "look at".
Debating whether or not {-Daq} is the right suffix isn't very productive
when there's no good verb to use in the sentence.
>But I would definately point for something (-vaD).
You're welcome to your opinion. I emphatically disagree with it, however.
>> ...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.
There are many ways to describe an action, but there is usually one way
that most directly and efficiently expresses a given meaning. For
following a course, {ghoS} is that way.
>Aim for doesn't have to include
>any motion in the direction of your aim.
My understanding of "aim for" certainly includes the idea of making
progress toward the destination, or at least an attempt to make progress.
>I agree anything you fire will
>follow a course (ghoS) but if I don't fire the thing I aim is still aimed.
You have aimed the thing *at* the target. The verb "aim" here has the
thing aimed as its object. Your "aim for" phrase uses a different sense of
the verb, with the thing moving as the subject and the destination as the
object.
>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.
If your intent is to hit the tree: {Sor DaqIpmeH taj Dabach.} Based on
the way your earlier post used "for work", I think you're getting confused
with the kind of "for" you want to use. In this case, {-meH} works a lot
better than {-vaD}, once you get to the intent behind the phrase.
>Additionally "throw the dagger for the tree" doesn't imply it hits or even
>goes in the right direction.
>[...]
>"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.
It implies hitting the tree a lot more strongly than "throw at" does, in my
opinion. But it sounds extremely odd to me; I've never heard anyone use
the "throw for" phrase in English, and I certainly wouldn't say anything
like it. Perhaps it's a regional thing?
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh