tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 15 16:51:24 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {Hum} "be sticky"
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {Hum} "be sticky"
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:50:43 +1000
- Bcc:
jIghItlhpu':
>IMHO, {lel} describes a subset or a special case of {teq}. I'd see the
>object of {lel} as being physically inside something else (so, inside a
>box,
>a packet, a room) whereas {teq} could describe something on something else,
>but not necessarily inside (so, on a wall, the floor, etc).
jang Voragh:
>Perhaps, but this is based purely on your own idiomatic sense. There's no
>Klingon evidence whatsoever.
When there's no canon, our opinions are all that we have. {{:D
I base my opinion on the glosses: {lel} "get out, take out" implies that
something is *in* something else until you {lel} it. {teq} "remove" seems
more general, and could refer to something on, in, near or otherwise in the
vicinity of something else: {raS bIngvo' yIteq} "remove it from under the
table!"
jIghItlhtaH:
>{ngaSwI'vo' Soj yIteq} "take the food off/out of/away from the container!"
jangtaH:
>or "Remove the food from the container." (Say, an instruction on a
>microwaveable food package!)
Agreed.
taH:
>{teq} is not glossed "take off, take out of, take away" - only "remove".
It's only a gloss. It's there to tell us the idea behind the word, not to
say "This is the word you use to translate {teq}". I'd say that "take the
food out of the container" and "remove the food from the container"
communicate the same basic idea, even if the connotations may differ a
little.
>Which makes it the verb of choice - barring any other data - for
>translating things like:
> qama' yIteq!
> Remove the prisoner!
>One could assume that there's an elided or understood place stamp:
> (pa'vo') qama' yIteq!
> Remove the prisoner (from this room)!
> (jIHvo') qama' yIteq!
> Remove the prisoner (from my presence)!
>But then, that based purely on my own idiomatic sense. <g>
Agreed; these seem fine to me. You could still say {pa'vo' qama' yIlel} for
the first one - although it might be somewhat marked, I don't know - but
{jIHvo' qama' yIlel} would be weird in most circumstances, except maybe this
one:
loD: {rejmorgh yImoj'eghmoHQo', qay'be'}
be': {'ach 'oy', 'oy'}
loD: {tugh bogh ghuma'; DaboghmoH 'ej SoS Damoj}
be': {jIHvaD wanI'vam DarInmoH SoH'e', petaQ}
loD: {ghu nach vIleghlaH! tugh narghbej ghu}
be': {jIHvo' qama' yIlel jay'}
{{;)
Savan,
QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' qan je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Buy want you really want - sell what you don't on eBay:
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/705-10129-5668-323?ID=2