[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

[De'vID]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 00:36, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:

>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since Okrand used {SIch ‘e’ nID} to mean “reach for”, I expect that
>>> {SIch} reaches its goal.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. The other example also confirms this: {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} only
>> makes sense as a question if {SIch} means successfully touching the thing
>> you're reaching for. (You *can* always *reach for* something, but whether
>> you actually can *reach* it is another question.)
>>
>
> Can you guys translate {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} without using the English
> word "reach"?
>

"Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?"


> I want to know exactly which meaning of "reach" you all mean because to me
> "reaches its goal" is the same as "arrive at its goal" which Okrand
> specifically said it wasn't.
>

He did? Where?

He was given two options:

"a) arriving to a destination or b) grasping toward something"

His answer was:

"The intended meaning is (b), as in" followed by two clarifying examples.

The meaning he was excluding is something along the lines of "We traveled
for two nights and reached Boston". *That* meaning, as he clarified, is
{paw}.

The expressions "reach its goal" and "arrive at its goal" are metaphors.
They're interchangeable only because, in the metaphor, you don't care
whether you're extending yourself to reach the goal or moving yourself to
arrive at the goal.

Okrand's reply was only distinguishing between the *literal* meanings of
(a) moving a body (object, etc.) so that it arrives at a destination and
(b) extending (part of) a body (object, etc.) to touch something.

He said it was (b) "grasping toward something".
>

He was asked if something was (a) or (b). He gave the answer that it was
(b) (i.e., it definitely wasn't (a)), then further clarified what specific
sense of (b) was meant with two examples. Note that "grasping toward
something" was one of two options presented to him, not words he composed
himself. It roughly matched what he meant, but it shouldn't be taken as the
definition.


> If I use that meaning in the translations it seems to mean something
> different from what you all are saying:
>
> {SIch 'e' nID} - "He tries to grasp toward something"
> {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} - "Are you able to grasp toward that book?"
>
> How would you translate these lines?
>

{paq vISIch 'e' vInID} "I extended (my arm) to try to grasp the book", "I
tried to grasp the book (by extending my arm, etc.)" (i.e., "I reached for
the book")
{SIch 'e' nID} "He extends (his arm) to try to grasp something", "I tried
to grasp something (by extending his arm, etc.)" (i.e., "He reaches for the
book")
{paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} "Are you able to extend yourself to touch that
book?" (i.e., "Can you reach that book?")

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190410/91dae969/attachment-0002.htm>