tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 13 04:28:37 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: walk two miles
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: walk two miles
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:28:24 +1000
- Bcc:
jIja'pu':
>For the time being, we may have to abandon the verb {leng} entirely, since
>its focus is on the destination of the journey, whereas we want to talk
>about the journey itself. Possibly {cha' qelI'qam chuq vIyIt} "I walked two
>kellicams' distance". (I know {yIt} is one of those verbs that
>prototypically doesn't normally take an object, but here it seems to work
>for me.)
mujang Voragh, ja':
>How is {yIt} any better? I would think all verbs of motion have the same
>problem.
I was going on what was said about the direct object of {leng} being the
place journeyed to (as in {yuQ vIleng}). For {yIt}, the place journeyed to
would have to obligatorily take {-Daq} based on the canon {pa' jIyIt'a'}. I
wouldn't accept *{Daqvetlh vIyIt} or *{Daqvetlh jIyIt} "I walked to that
place"; the set of "location stamps", as ter'eS calls them, is much more
limited in Klingon than the set of time stamps. Nevertheless, you've also
made me realise that {leng} and {yIt} would both work the same way in {cha'
qelI'qam chuq vI-(leng, yIt)} "I (journey, walk) two kellicams' distance".
But {leng} only works with the version plus {chuq} "distance for the meaning
that Quvar wanted IMO; as you've pointed out, {cha' qelI'qam vIleng} is
probably something quite different.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Get FOXTEL this Summer ? New low install price of only $29.95
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fadsfac%2Enet%2Flink%2Easp%3Fcc%3DFXT018%2E19119%2E0%26clk%3D1%26creativeID%3D28172&_t=752582449&_m=EXT