[3609] in tlhIngan-Hol
re: vIH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Mar 5 22:15:36 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 20:15:08 -0700
>vIjang:
>I did notice and pay attention to your mention of "both
>directions", and therefore I read the passage from TKD carefully
>to see what it said about them. And I read the sentence
>beginning "Similarly" as parallel with the foregoing discussion
>about the E-K side: it tells us that the same convention applies
>to the K-E side. Thus, when the K-E side of the dictionary gives
>us
>
> vIH move, be in motion (v)
>
>"move" is the key word in the phrase (under which a Terran would
>be likely to search), but the proper translation is "be in
>motion".
>
>- marqem
I see your point, but still no sale. "move" is NOT in any way
keyword for the phrase "be in motion". The same passage gives a
clear example: headache, have a headache. A keyword, by definition,
is a word which appears in the phrase. This is not a parallel case.
No, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he did not mean two
related meanings. In particular, suppose that he *had* meant for
vIH to work either way. What would his entry look like? Indeed, it
would look exactly as it looks now.
Again, I am not arguing one way or the other for vIH, I am simply
pointing out that the case is far from clear cut and settled.
--Krankor
