tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 28 04:40:38 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nuq bach?

Rohan F (qeslagh@hotmail.com)



ghItlhpu' qa'vaj, jatlh:
>The entity that the shooter is intending to hit when he shoots seems like a
>natural {-vaD} to me.  But, I don't have any problem erasing that notion
>once I reach the point of being convinced (which is not yet).

There's an example in "The Undiscovered Country" that might convince you:

Qo'noS wa'Daq baHta'
"They fired [intentionally] upon Kronos One." (ST:VI)

>From this sentence alone, one might think it just means that the shooter (in
this case, the Enterprise) was firing *towards* Kronos One, but we know
from the film that the Enterprise did in fact hit Kronos One (or, at least,
it appeared to). Since {baH} is like {bach} in that the direct object is the
thing shot or fired (see KGT, where {baH} is glossed as "fire (a torpedo)"),
the indirect object of {bach} should also probably be marked with {-Daq},
and that's what turns up on S14:

...ray' HopDaq bachlu'meH chuqna' ghurmoH naQvam
"This [stock] serves to ... increase the effective range for distance
targeting." (S14)

QeS 'utlh

_________________________________________________________________
Looking to move somewhere new this winter? Let ninemsn property help
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline&_tw4152450&_r=Domain_tagline&_m=EXT




Back to archive top level