tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 28 15:22:21 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:35 AM
Subject: 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.
Sorry that was my mind taking the next step.
> 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.
Isn't that the case with any action of that kind. Even someone with a
telescopic sight doesn't know he's going to hit the target until his bullet
hits. His target was the same whether he did or did not.
>
> "Aim" and "point" don't affect the tree, and I'm still going to reject
> {-vaD} in those cases.
Why does it apply to speach then.. The person you are talking to (for)
doesn't even have to hear for it to apply there. a guard may demand where a
deaf man is going, but unless he's looking at the guard he isn't even going
to know the the guard is saying anything let alone speaking to him
personally.
> 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.
The stars are irrelevant to my arguement and yes they are just the point of
reference in relation to the direction.. I can't describe a spatial
direction acurately especially for others to follow if I don't relate it to
something, a target. It doesn't matter what the target is which is why when
someone said soething to the effect of, you couldn't reach/touch the stars
as there are too many of them, they're too far away or you would burn up
when you did made no sense to me. That's why I went the other way and said
about raising to the ceiling. My point is I am raising the betleH and I'm
doing it in a particular direction. The direction is towards the stars.
>
> >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}.
doesn't a gunnery commander say things like aim at these coordinates.. Aim
doesn't have to only apply to something that has already aimed. It also
applies (possibly more so) at something that is looking for it target...ie
aiming.
>
> >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.
>
I will bow to your expertise on that one I just used look to show another
aspect of whether to use -Daq or -vaD..
> >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.
Agreed as to folloeing a course but then that is not at issue. i'm not
trying to understand about my phrase and following a course.. I'm
questioning the how to carryout any action and doing it in a certain
direction... I thought something would work and asked if it would and if not
why. I appreciate that an answer to why is sometime "because MO shows us it
is " but as stated by others we haven't got examples to the contrary so I
just like to know if something is concidered incorerect.. why?
>
> >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.
Once my target is found I may not move until I pull the trigger but I'm
still aiming for my target...
Aren't I?
>
> >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.
Exactly I aim my gun at the target or I aim my gun for the target
the object is the gun that I'm aiming
the verb is aim (in this case)
and the target is what I aim at ...
I'm just suggesting that the target in tlhIngan Hol might have -vaD
attached instead of the normal English usage of at/to/in...
Just as I aim my speach for my audience
>
> >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.
>
>>[---]
> >[...]
> >"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?
What about a fair ground game of throwing a ball into a bucket.. Assuming
you'd heard of it, I would aim for the bucket I wouldn't aim at the bucket.
But even so How many time do we read on this list about confusing English
useage with Klingon when what we are trying to work out is how a Klingon
might say something... I for one would never think or say "I said for the
prisoner" instead of "I said to the prisoner". But as I understand it
Klingons do. What is the target of my speach and which suffix do I attach
to it? I thought it was -vaD and that makes strong connection between the
two usages.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
>
qe'San