tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 12:47:08 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -vo'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -vo'
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:46:46 CST
jIjatlh:
> >- 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.
>
jang SarrIS:
> Motion implies two different locations for one subject or object, the
> difference being that of time. At different times, the subject or object is
> located at each of these two locations and the verb of motion is the
> connector between these points in space/time. For {legh} and {bej}, you
> again have one verb that stitches together two different locations, though
> there is no time separation, and the subject and object are different
> nouns. The direct object is the thing seen or watched. The subject is the
> one seeing or watching. Just as motion always implies different locations,
> so does seeing and watching.
>
so far, I agree completely
> So, where is the action happening? Generally, action happens with verbs
> where the subject is. Generally speaking, for the vast majority of verbs,
> if you have a {-Daq} marked locative, it is giving the location of the
> subject when the action of the verb occurs.
>
I trust your statistics :)
> That is what is striking about verbs like {bej} and {legh}. Suddenly, when
> we have a noun with {-Daq}, we no longer are sure the subject is located by
> the locative. In fact, it seems that in all cases I can remember, we've
> applied the {-Daq} to the location of the direct object. That is the
> disturbing thing that got me on this idea in the first place. If the
> locative gives the location of the direct object, then what can give the
> location of the subject?
>
one might assume, that the "location" of seeing, e.g., encommpasses
the complete path the light travels (in a simple ray-model kind of way),
and that the noun with the {Daq} on it can refer to the whole path, i.e.
both Subject and Object are at that site, or to parts of the path that
end either at the Subject or at the Object, so that e.g.
Qe'Daq QanQor vIlegh
can mean that at least one of us is in the restaurant, although I agree
that there seems to be a strong preference for the location to include
at least the Object, but I consider that to be a carry-over from how
other languages I know seem to work.
> Suddenly {-vo'} seemed like the best candidate. "From my perspective..."
> "When viewed from afar..." "From my window, I can see the mountains in the
> East." Qorwaghvo' chanDaq HuD'a' vIleghlaH. Where am I? Where are the
> mountains?
>
after some reflection on the matter, I think the difference between
my point of view (sorry) and yours is that for me, the seeing is not
directed, i.e., I don't see "from" somewhere "towards" someplace else.
(as opposed to, e.g., "look at")
I don't know how Klingons feel about it. You might be right, or
I might be wrong... whose is the knowing?
> >- 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.
>
> If the subject is not the origin of the aiming, then what is?
exactly! however, my point was, that *because of this assumption*,
another "origin", explicitly given with -vo' might be weird
> >- 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.
>
> Even when it is by Star-Trek styled transporer, which doesn't really
> involve motion? You just disappear from one place and reappear in another.
>
hmmm. I'm inclined to say "Yes".
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]