tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 30 22:14:06 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> ja' qe'San:
>
> >> "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}.
>
So that'll teach for not being specific of which type of verb of
vocalisation.
I was referring to the use of -vaD as a suffix effectively meaning "to" in
an example like
"You make a speach to the prisoners"
qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh
> >> ...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"?
No it isn't. One aspect I was unsure of was what suffix would possibly be
used on [lurgh]
In my sentence [Hovmey] was added to [lurgh] to define [lurgh]
ie the [stars] [direction] or the [direction] of the [stars]
But this discussion keeps getting sidetracked.
>
> >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.
Thank you. That is what I said originally but was told I couldn't do that..
At least that was what I felt most were][ saying but not really backing up
with a reasonable arguements.
>
> >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.
I remember using the first but not the latter.. I as a person in my phrase
would be moving nowhere. I want to raise an object in a certain direction
and want to say that in a Klingon way.
>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.
I don't know where I've implied that... It's what others have said I want to
do never what I want to do.and then they disappear with no return comments..
It's very frustrating..
(Thankyou for staying with me)
that's why I argue about using ghoS or other strange examples... I don't
want to go anywhere....
>
> >> 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.
I agree but I don't want to go anywhere.
> >
> >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},
Then why was I told that was wrong... Thats what I originally wrote in May.
> 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.
-vaD got involved in this discussion because someone else suggested it. At
first I saw a certain logic but realised the basis for that logic was in
error although for me it raised the issue of whether -vaD could be valid for
sentences like "throw the knife to the tree" /"throw the knife for the tree"
and could see a similarity with the definition of "to" as in "It is useful
to the mission" etc. or "you make a speach to the prisoners".. I know I
can't say it can or can't be used. I was just stating my observation and
saying why not ?
>
> 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.
I think thats just my inability to get my idea across correctly and start to
try and describe the idea in a diferrent way. I keep thinking if I can show
several ways of use that it will back up my arguement.. I'm obviously just
confusing the issue.
> 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.
As I said I'm obviously confusing the issue. The reason I've been arguing is
because I've felt that others have been missing my point so i've been trying
to re phrase or make clearer examples..
>
> >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.
this is what I was just saying Yes I agree I am aiming *at* my target but
that is the same as aiming *for* my target both are used with no difference
I'm aware of . Just as "you make a speach *to* the prisoners " you make a
speach *for* the prisoners" In some ways it more accurate, especially if
they weren't listoning.. So you don't think I've wondered off again I'm
coming to *at* Just as I can use *for* in that sentence I feel I can use
*at* again.. As to aim I've heard politician talk about "aiming a speach
at a particular audience (their 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.
Ok that's a bit horrible but still using a weapon what about "aim the
missile for the command centre" all I've done is specify the target and the
type of gun. Now it's fine and a phrase I have 100% confidence with. Before
anyone says about the missile being in motion and I've changed the useage I
haven't fired it yet and maybe I won't but the nmissile will still be aimed
*for* the command centre as well as *at* it
>
> >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.
I wanted and still want to use -Daq for the stars as I'm only trying to
attach it specifically to [lurgh]
-vaD came in elsewhere and was brought up originally by someone else.
>
> >Just as I aim my speach for my audience
>
> I don't agree with using the term "aim" for a speech.
I know this isn't speech but then I am speaking it in my head when I aim my
reply to your comments. I don't many people would ever use it except
politicians but if what you say is not aimed at someone are you not talking
to yourself. There again If I was talking to my self who is my target.. I
am! That might make me made But I'd still be the target.
>
> >> ...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?
Possibly but I'm sure I've heard it on American movies so it can't just be
to do with being English.
There again we're not talking about American or English we're talking about
Klingon.
> >
> >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".
I didn't say I preferred it just that it is used, has been used and is as
valid even if it sound a bit funny in some circumstances.. Just as I think
parts of Klingon seem funny..
eg
'avwI'vaD jatlh qama' jIghung
a prisoner says to the guard, "I am hungry"
Even Mo doesn't say what he wrote "The prisoner says for the guard, 'I'm
hungry'" or "For the guard, the prisoner says, I'm hungry'"
He uses *to* *at* would also have fitted of course but the most common
translation of -vaD is *for*
>
> >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.
A target is anything you aim something whether it is light waves (phaser) or
sound waves (voice) you still have a object that has to fire/emit and a
subject that fired/emitted it and if you go the whole hog the indirect
object that those light/sound wave were intended to reach... The target.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
>
>
qe'San