tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 28 21:27:20 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
ja' qe'San:
>> ...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.
My main problem is that when you say "throw at" in English instead of
"throw to", I don't get the impression that you're referring to a target.
It still strikes me as just an indication of direction, and not a
destination.
>> "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.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The person you are talking to is the
object of the verb {ja'}. One does not use either {-Daq} *or* {-vaD}.
>> ...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'm getting more and more confused. Isn't this entire discussion about
which suffix goes on {Hovmey} in the translation of the phrase "Raise Your
betleH to the Stars"?
>I can't describe a spatial
>direction acurately especially for others to follow if I don't relate it to
>something, a target.
If it's a location, you can mark it adequately as such by putting the
locative suffix {-Daq} on it. It doesn't have to be the target of an
action in order for it to be a direction.
>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.
You're failing to distinguish between the two different uses of "aim" that
you have mentioned in English. One is "aim (an object) at (a target)".
The subject of the sentence causes the object of the sentence to point
somewhere. The other is "aim for (a destination)". The subject of the
sentence attempts to reach somewhere. Part of the difficulty I'm having
with your explanations of why you're trying to use {-vaD} for directional
concepts is that you keep switching between different ideas for the same
English verb.
>> 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 don't believe the situation is that simple. You got a couple of answers
telling you that spatial concepts are best expressed with {-Daq}, and that
{-vaD} is best used for a noun that actually *gets* something out of what
happens in the sentence. Pointing at a tree doesn't fit my understanding
of a concept with a beneficiary.
You keep trying to argue that {-vaD} *does* work for pointing, or for
moving your arm in a certain direction, or for *intending* to throw a knife
at a target; but you keep switching off into other verbs and other meanings
in the process. It looks to me like you've got yourself convinced of
something that doesn't have a whole lot of justification, and you just
don't want to hear arguments to the contrary.
>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?
No. Again, you're aiming something *at* your target.
>Exactly I aim my gun at the target or I aim my gun for the target
I don't think "aim my gun for the target" is a valid English phrase.
>the object is the gun that I'm aiming
>the verb is aim (in this case)
>and the target is what I aim at ...
Yes, you aim *at* the target. You don't "aim the gun for" it. You could
probably "shoot a projectile for" or "throw a knife for" a target; these
phrases do parallel somewhat the action in {yaSvaD taj vInob}. But you aim
your gun *in* a specific direction; you aim your gun *at* a specific thing.
You don't aim your gun "for" something (unless perhaps you're throwing the
gun itself).
>I'm just suggesting that the target in tlhIngan Hol might have -vaD
>attached instead of the normal English usage of at/to/in...
The target could get {-vaD}. But there's no way I'll accept stars being
the "target" of raising a sword.
>Just as I aim my speach for my audience
I don't agree with using the term "aim" for a speech.
>> ...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.
I think you're the only one I've ever seen use the phrase "aim for" in this
way. You're certainly the only one I've seen use it in preference to "aim
at".
>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.
I wouldn't say either of those. I'd say {qama' vIja'} and be done with it.
There's no "target" here. There's an object which receives the action of
the verb "say", and one might argue that "target" is an appropriate term to
use in general for the object of a sentence, but that doesn't make it
similar to the target of a phaser blast.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh