tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 04 09:05:25 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:05:24 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:19:03 -0700 [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 96-06-01 03:03:23 EDT, you write:
>
> >ghunchu'wI' corrects along the lines of:
> >>> ... Need to use {jI-} instead of {-vI} because there is no object
> >
> >I see. My corrrection:
> > {nagh bIngDaq jIyIn}
> >
> >beHwI"av wonders:
> >> Isn't "a rock's below-area" an object.[?]
> >
> >Yes. That is, it is an object if the sentence is something like "Kick the
> >rock's below-area!", or perhaps "You have seen the rock's below area".
> >
> >But in my sentence, it was not an object. There -was- no object, the main
> >part of the sentence was just {jIyIn}: "I live." The rock's below-area was
> >where the action is taking place, and thus took the {-Daq}.
>
> Continuing my previous post: TKD p28 states "There are a few verbs whose
> meanings include locative motions, such as {ghoS} 'approach, proceed.' The
> locative suffix need not be used on nouns whicha re the objects (Note that
> word objects) of such verbs."
You are becoming hopelessly lost. The only verb we know for
sure can take a locative as an object is {ghoS}. Even then,
its object does NOT have a locative suffix. The nearest
English parallel I can offer is:
"I'm going home."
Note that usually, in English, we need a helping word. "I
go to work. I go on vacation. I go around the block."
Meanwhile, when the destination is "home", there is no
helping word. "I go home."
It would be dangerous for someone studying English as a
second langauge to make massive generalizations about not
having to use prepositions for destinations of "go".
You might start proposing that we say, "I go work. I go
vacation. I go the block."
Are you really trying to suggest that the above statement
should have been {nagh bIng vIyIn}? Get real. [He says,
with a straight face, discussing a fictional langauge...]
> This raises the possibility that the other Type 5 Noun Suffixes {-vo'},
> {-mo'} and {-vaD} also mark Objects, to the Klingon grammarian, that is.
It most certainly does not. Notice that in the canon on
which you are basing these particularly absurd ideas,
Okrand shows us that when the noun is being used as an
object of a verb whose object is associated with a
location, THERE IS NO TYPE 5 SUFFIX. Unfortunately, for his
example of such a verb's use WITH {-Daq}, he chose an
ambiguous prefix. Still, it is quite clear, generalizing
from other examples that proper grammar would be:
juH vIghoS.
or
juHDaq jIghoS.
It would NOT be: {juHDaq vIghoS}. That would mean, "At
home, I approach it," with the "it" being some unspecified
object of the verb {ghoS}.
My understanding of the verb {ghoS} is that its object is
the name of the course one is following. In common
language, the name of the course is the name of the object
most clearly associated with the course, which is usually
its destination. For all the definitions {ghoS} has, they
all basically imply motion along a specific, intentional
path which intersects the object stated.
Meanwhile, there are NO examples using a prefix on the verb
indicating that there is definitely an object and that
object has any of the suffixes you suggest, including
{-Daq}.
> peHruS
----------------------
charghwI'