[3553] in tlhIngan-Hol
vIH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Mar 3 17:52:54 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: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 17:26:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Thu, 3 Mar 94 13:42:41 EST <199403031843.
NAA03394@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 13:42:41 EST
>Interesting point. Essentially, {vIH} can take indirect objects, but not
>direct ones, though Klingon does not differentiate between them the way
>English does. I do see a difference between {vIH} and the other locative
>verbs. An infant lying on its back, squirming may be said to {vIH}, but it is
>not necessarily moving along a path from origin to destination the way things
>which walk, fly, etc. do. That's why I see it fitting into this class of
>verbs only some of the time, and then a bit more tenuously. When the pathway
>is the significant point of the motion, {ghoS} is probably a better
>choice.
Hee. Had to comment on this. There's canonical edidence for charghwI''s
contention about a squirming infant being said to vIH even though it
doesn't ghoS. I just remembered in CK, in the restaurant scene, where the
patron says "the serpent-worms are moving"... "vIH qagh". And certainly
qagh move like an infant... squirming and wriggling but not really going
anywhere, at least all the ones I've seen on the shows.
>charghwI'
~mark
