tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 01 12:25:48 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -Daq KLBC

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: -Daq KLBC


> i have a lot of questions. i have read a lot of posts here lately on the
> subject of -Daq and i need you to explain this to me because for some
reason, i am
> not understanding this at all.
> then i have other questions regarding some of my own posts on different
> subjects.

Admittedly, areas of the language like this can be confusing, for anyone.
The only advice I can offer is to hang in there, and as you reach the point
in your development with this language that you run into these problems,
these conversations will make alot more sense to you. Reading these right
now is like getting street by street directions to get to a small corner of
a town that is a thousand miles away. Before you've gotten to the city,
telling you to turn left on Pine St is meaningless.

I hope that makes some sense.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Qes lagh:
>
> > I'd say that "via" in English is more an instrumental
> > ("by means of") than a locative, and therefore doesn't fall
> > under the umbrella of meanings provided by {-Daq}.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------------
> At this point i would think that {Daq} could not be used for {via}.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -----------

You're right, not always.

> Dar Qang
>
> >Thanks.  The responses taken together help define for me the concept
> >discussed in
> >DloraH's post.  That usage of -Daq isn't in the dictionary, so was new to
> >me.  Before
> >seeing the excerpt of that HolQeD discussion, I would have rendered the
> >concept of
> >{DujDaq jIjaH} as something like {jIjaH. jIjaHtaHvIS Duj vIlo'} or some
such.
>
> >I (now) take the {lojmIt} examples as a case were the concept doesn't
apply.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------------------------------
> this part here makes me think i have missed something important and he is
> saying that
> -Daq can be used to mean {via}.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ----------------------------

Once again, you're right, but not always.

> >However, I currently believe the following /would/ be included as example
> >of  -Daq/verb of motion usage as discussed in the HolQeD excerpt:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ok. what exactly is he referring to here?  -Daq/verb of motion..
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------

"Verbs of motion" refer to verbs like {jaH} "to go", {ghoS} "to approach",
{leng} "to travel", etc.
In Klingon grammar, the object of the verbs of motion is generally the
destination, and as long as you use a verb prefix that indicates an object
({vI-}, {wI-}, {Da-}, etc.) it seems to be your choice whether or not to use
{-Daq} on the object noun. So:

{yuQ vIleng} and {yuQDaq vIleng} BOTH mean "I travel to the planet.", and
are both correct.

OTOH, if you use a prefix that indicates no object ({jI-}, {bI-}, {ma-},
etc.) You *must* use {-Daq} or {-vo'}, and the verb has no object. So:
{DujDaq jIleng} "I travel on a ship." (I travel using a ship) This says
nothing about a destination. Merely that I travel.
{bIQtIqvo' bIjaH} "You go from the river" Where? Don't know. Sentence
doesn't tell us. Using what? No idea. That's not there, either.

If you want to get a better feel for this, try translating these, then
answering the questions, and post your answers. I'll then look at them,
explain any errors, and work with you that way. (This is strictly voluntary,
and you won't be able to answer some of the questions. I did that on
purpose.)
For each of these sentences, tell me where we are going, and what are we
using to get there. (Either the mode of transport or the path.)
{bIQtIqDaq majaH}
{bIQtIqDaq wIjaH}
{bIQtIq wIjaH}
{DujDaq bIQtIq wIjaH}

> >I fail to see a difference here. If there is one, could someone point it
out
> >to me?
>
> >1. <'ochDaq veng vI'el.> "I enter the city via the tunnel."
> >2. <chobDaq pa' vI'el> "I enter the room via the corridor."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -------------------
> it is apparent to me that i am not the only one having problems
understanding
> this.
> is Daq being used properly in either of these 2 sentences?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------

Well, this is one of those "grey areas". I will tell you that I, personally,
believe that yes, this is a valid use of {-Daq}.
In both sentences, we have a destination, and the entering is happening in a
tunnel or corridor. It doesn't seem out of line at all to me. But that
doesn't make it so.

> From: <[email protected]>
> > i dont either. but i dont quite understand any of this thread. i think
> what i
> > got out of this is that Daq can be used to mean "via" instead of just
"in"
> at
> > or "on". qar'a'?
>
> SuStel
>
> No.  {-Daq} means "in/at/to/on/into," etc.  It just so happens that the
idea
> "I go to the planet in the ship" could be reworded as "I go to the planet
> via the ship" and still mean basically the same thing.  {-Daq} does not
mean
> "via."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --
>
> then what is it that i am not  not understanding here? can u please try
and
> explain this all to me in such a way that i can understand it? maybe
without
> all of the grammar terminology. since i am a beginner and by no means a
> linguist, i do not understand a lot of the terms used and this causes me
to not
> understand this whole thing! ok. done with Daq. on to other things.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ------------------

As you've probably noticed, context is vitally important in translating
things into Klingon. All SuStel is saying is to be careful of making blanket
staements like "{-Daq} means 'via'". {-Daq} *can* mean "via", under certain
circumstances. But it doesn't always apply, and like most things in this
language, it must be taken on a case by case basis.


Keep the questions coming if anything isn't clear.

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701361.3

Back to archive top level