tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 08 12:35:03 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -vo'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -vo'
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:34:45 CST
SarrIS:
> I'd like some feedback on a concept.
>
[pe']
> lojmItvo' quSDaq vIghoS. "I'm going from the door to the chair." Here
> {-vo'} marks the site where the action begins while {-Daq} marks the site
> where the motion ends.
>
> Then again, we have these verbs that do not imply motion, but they do imply
> multiple locations. One is the site of the action. The other is the target
> of the action. These are verbs like:
>
> legh
> Qeq
> bej
> lab
> lI'
> HIj
> lup
> baH
>
> Okrand has explained that the locative usually refers to the place where
> the action happens, though he has violated this general rule when using
> verbs like this in some of his own examples, using the locative for the
> target instead of the site of the action. There's also his comment about
> the joke, "I shot an elephant in my pajamas..."
>
I don't have a list of the examples you're referring to here,
so it's quite likely that parts or all of my opinion I give below
is turned upside down or inside out by Okrandian canon...
> So far, {-vo'} has probably been one of the least frequently used suffixes
> (next to {-beH}, the king of all underutilized suffixes). What do the rest
> of you think of using it to disambiguate the location of the site of these
> verbs?
>
> Qe' Hurvo' Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh. "I was outside the restaurant and I saw
> Krankor in the restaurant."
>
> For years, I've been avoiding that because I wanted {-vo'} to refer to
> actual motion, but it makes such a natural counterpart to {-Daq} that it
> would make sense as a sort of second locative for verbs that involve two
> locatives where one is the site of the action and the other is the target
> of the action. I'd favor using {-vo'} as the site marker and {-Daq} as the
> target marker.
>
> Reactions?
>
for clarification: you would like the above example "better" than
e.g. {Qe' HurDaq jIHtaHvIS 'ej Qe'Daq ghaHtaHvIS QanQor'e',
QanQor vIlegh} because it is much more concise, qar'a'?
(Not e.g. because there is anything wrong grammatically with what I wrote?)
I'm not sure of how generally my opinion is on this,
so I'll look at the verbs you've listed case by case:
- legh, bej: it works similarly in German, so I'd understand it,
but I don't really see the location of the "seer" or "watcher"
as either the site or the origin of the action of seeing.
This is probably similar to how you perceive the site of
pouring a liquid to be one of the containers (I don't recall
which one), whereas I don't. A matter of opinion until/unless
we have canon examples one way or another.
another point: if you don't want to specify the location of
the subject, what is left, {Qe'Daq QanQor vIlegh} either
means something completely different, namely that both me
and QanQor are in the restaurant, or it looks suspiciously like
you're seeing "QanQor in the restaurant", i.e. a N-N construction
with a type 5 on the first noun.
- Qeq: I'd readily accept a N-Daq as the target of the aiming.
but again, I can't see the subject as the origin of the aiming.
Maybe something similar to the Deixis thing we know from verbs
like {Sum} is at work here, and you need two sentences: one to
establish your location, another to say what you're aming at.
- lab, lI': I'm probably mixing these two up completely...
I feel that {lab} always (via Deixis?) implies transmission
towards me, one can indicate an explicit origin using -vo';
{lI'} otoh, implies transmission away from me, with an
explicit target indicated by -Daq. It may be the other way round
for all I know...
- HIj: in my mind works like lI', in that delivery is away
from me, a target may be explicitly denoted by -Daq
- lup: this is IMO quite clearly a case where you can indicate
an origin with -vo' and a destination with -Daq; no doubt in my mind.
- baH: again, I shoot the thingies away from me, a target may
be indicated by -Daq.
I realize now: wherever I said "away from me" or "towards me"
I should really have said "away from the SUBJECT" and
"towards the SUBJECT"...
in summary: I don't think your idea will lead to misunderstandings,
but unless canon proves me wrong, this usage doesn't go along well
with how I see -vo', and even though I realize that challenging
unreflected perceptions of what -vo' is good for was at least one
of your points, I'm still a little sceptical.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]