[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

[Steven Boozer]

Sometimes is useful to see how Okrand uses specific English words himself, e.g. "reach" in KGT (not counting idioms like "reach an age", "reach an agreement", etc.):

KGT 99:  A diner transfers a portion to his or her plate ..., if one is available, by simply grabbing the desired quantity of food with a hand. If the {'elpI'} (serving platter) is not close by, it is quite acceptable to just reach across the table or to walk around the table to a more convenient position. If necessary, two hands may be used to break off ({wItlh}) a slab of the desired fare. If {ngop} (plates) are provided, they will probably be in a pile somewhere on the table. It is acceptable to reach over and grab one; it is not acceptable to ask someone else to grab a plate and pass it down.

He seems to distinguish "reaching across, reaching over" with "grabbing";  the reaching precedes the grabbing.  Is this the difference between {SIch} vs. {'uch}?

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, 
  Or what's a heaven for?”
(Robert Browning, from his "Andrea del Sarto")

Voragh

-----Original Message-----
From: Lieven L. Litaer

Am 11.04.2019 um 11:28 schrieb De'vID:
> latter is perfectly clear. While Okrand's examples are brief, they 
> were clearly chosen to disambiguate whether actual contact is included 
> in the meaning of {SIch}.

Okrand wrote:
> The intended meaning is (b), as in {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} — maybe 
> the book's on a high shelf. Or {paq vISIch 'e' vInID}, which could be 
> translated "I reached for the book. The (a) meaning is covered by {paw}."

Okay, I got the point with {paw}, no discussion. But the question {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} asks whether the goal can be achieved, right? If {SIch} means only "reach for" in the sense of stretching your arm, then it does not include the touching. I can reach for the stars, but surely won't touch them.

So if {SIch} includes the touching, the answer to {DaSIchlaH'a'} is only 'yes' if I can touch. If {SIch} is only the movement ("reach-for-stars"), then the answer is always 'yes', unless my arm is broken. But if {SIch} includes both possibilities, both answers 'yes' and 'no' are always correct: I can always reach for something, even if I cannot reach it.