[83983] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Missing question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Tue Jan 15 23:32:22 2008
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:24:33 -0600
From: qa'vaj <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <266A0857-4080-4366-BC7A-5B56EC774D1F@embarqmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jan 15, 2008 12:35 PM, Doq <doq@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> My problem with {-vo'}/{-Daq} for an expression of distance is that it
> implies motion, and "distance" does not. If you used {joj}, you could
> similarly describe the distance without implying any directional
> motion. Meanwhile, I doubt we have much in the way of canon use of
> {joj} and I personally find it somewhat awkward to use.
>
>
> Don't forget {tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq}, which is an idiomatic expression
for 'everywhere', without implying motion.
I don't view {-vo'}/{-Daq} pairing as expressing distance. I see it as a
locative that is conceptually like a line segment between two defined
endpoints, starting at {-vo'} and ending at {-Daq}. A path. Distance would
be a measure of the length of the segment. I'm not sure if we have a way to
talk about the size of a locative expression. That would be required in
order to talk about the distance for a locative path defined with
{-vo')/{-Daq}.
I think the canon supports the idea of {-vo'} being like a mathematical
'ray' outward from a point. If motion is implied in the verb, then the
{-vo'}-ray defines the starting point and direction of the motion. There
probably aren't many verbs that can use such a locative without implying
motion, but {legh} is one.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
