tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 31 15:56:24 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: locatives in relative clauses

Guido#1vo':

>For a while, some members on this mailing list have been speculating
>about how to translate a relative clause whose head noun is locative,
>e.g., "the ship to which, the reason for which, etc." And not too 
>long ago, I announced that I had found what appeared to be what 
>everyone was looking for. {naDev jIHtaHbogh vISovbe'}. In the 
>appendix of TKD, this was translated as "I'm lost," or rather 
>"I don't know where I am." WillMartin expressively stated his 
>discontent with this; he interpreted this sentence as "I don't know
>what I am here." This is understandable. But I'd like to refer 
>Martin to section 6.3 of TKD where Okrand illustrates the use of
>pronouns in connection with locatives by adding the -taH suffix.
>Thus, jIHtaH does not mean "I continue to be (something)," but 
>rather "I am at/in/on (somewhere)." The -taH suffix after a pronoun
>is used to describe location. 

Balderdash.  It absolutely means "I continue to be."  The "at/in/on"
concept comes from the locative itself, whether it is an explicit
-Daq (pa'wIjDaq jIHtaH) or implicit (naDev jIHtaH).  In particular,
tlhIngan jIHtaH certainly means "I continue to be a Klingon" (or "I
am still a Klingon", or "I am being a Klingon", or however you want
to best render the -taH in English).

By the way, I too have never been very happy with naDev jIHtaHbogh
vISovbe'.  It's actual translation is "I don't know [the] here that I
am [at]".  Very alien in feel, which I suppose is a good thing.
However, my own way of choice to say "I don't know where I am" is
nuqDaq jIH 'e' vISovbe'-- literally, "Where am I?  I don't know
that."


>As TKD in section 3.3.5 shows, in addition to jIHtaH/SoHtaH/ghaHtaH/etc.,
>"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, 
>such as ghoS /approach, proceed/. The locative suffix need not be 
>used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs." jaH and qet
>would also be in this category. So how, may I ask, would 
>{Duj vIghoS} be translated: "I proceed *TO* the ship." But *to*
>is missing from the Klingon since the locative notion of the
>verb makes it redundant. If so, then {nIn ghaj Duj vIghoSbogh} 
>must mean "The ship *to* which I proceed has fuel." 

majQa'!  vIparHa'qu'.

                --Krankor

Back to archive top level