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