[tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch

[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.

Hovmey vISIchlaHchugh, vaj reH paqvetlh vISIchlaHqu'!

Is it a boy or a girl? Yes!

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.klingonisch.de