tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 16 21:56:25 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -vo'
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: -vo'
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:58:15 -0500
- Importance: Normal
SarrIS:
> pa'vo' pagh leghlu'.
>
> "The room has no view."
>
> More literally, "One sees nothing FROM the room."
>
> There appears to be evidence that, at least for the single verb {legh},
> there is one example in canon saying that the viewing occurs FROM {-vo} the
> position of the viewer. There appears to be no evidence that viewing occurs
> from {-vo'} the thing being viewed, regardless of which way light or other
> information is flowing.
It's interesting how {-vo'} is used to disambiguate in this case.
If it had been {pa'*Daq* pagh leghlu'}, it would have meant that nothing
was *in* the room to see. {-vo'} with {legh} seems to indicate that
the object being seen is at a different location than the viewer.
That raises an interesting point. If I was *in* the room, and I said
{pa'Daq pagh leghlu'}, it's obvious that I mean that there's nothing
to see in the room. But what if I am *outside* the room? If I said
{pa'Daq pagh leghlu'}, would that mean that (from the outside) there's
nothing in the room to see?
Going to the other example, {naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'}, it seems
to mean that the tourist can't see something else (that is elsewhere)
very well from where she was standing. If she had said {naDev
jIleghlaHchu'be'} (since there's no {-Daq} on {naDev}) it would
have meant that she couldn't see clearly where she was, i.e.
she couldn't see her immediate surroundings.
This seems to suggest that {-vo'} marks the location of the
subject (viewer) and {-Daq} marks the object (viewee):
{HurDaq Qanqor vIlegh} "I see Krankor on the outside", i.e. "I see
Krankor and he's outside (I'm probably outside too unless context
indicates otherwise)"
vs.
{Hurvo' Qanqor vIlegh} "I see Krankor from the outside", i.e. "I see
Krankor and I'm outside (Krankor may or may not be outside)"
Going back to the original example you raised,
SarrIS (from a while ago):
> Qe' Hurvo' Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh. "I was outside the restaurant and
> I saw Krankor in the restaurant."
The canon seems to support this interpretation. While it's not
a definite resolution, I think your interpretation has a very good
case.
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]