tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 09 22:51:31 2012

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: [Tlhingan-hol] chIjwI' tIQ bom: {baQ} {DeH} je

De'vID ([email protected]) 

<p><br>
QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; jIghItlhpu&#39;, jIjatlh:<br>
&gt; &gt; chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay&#39;<br>
&gt; &gt; mutlhejqangchugh nuv QaQ,<br>
&gt; &gt; Dunqu&#39;; jIHvaD lengvetlh &#39;ey DeH<br>
&gt; &gt; SawwI&#39; &#39;uQ&#39;a&#39; &#39;ey baQ!</p>
<p>&gt; mujang De&#39;vID, jatlh:<br>
&gt; &gt; It may just be me, but I read {wIlengtaHvIS maH mutlhej nuv} as &quot;a<br>
&gt; &gt; person accompanies *us* while *we* travel&quot;, i.e., the {maH} excludes<br>
&gt; &gt; the (additional) companion.  Even with {maH tay&#39;}, I&#39;m inclined to<br>
&gt; &gt; interpret this as the speaker already being a part of a group, which is<br>
&gt; &gt; then accompanied by an additional person.  Otherwise, the additional<br>
&gt; &gt; companion would be {tlhej}ing him/herself, which doesn&#39;t quite work in<br>
&gt; &gt; my mind.</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; I&#39;m a little surprised to hear that. {mu-} isn&#39;t one of the prefixes that<br>
&gt; is defective for number: {mutlhej} can only mean &quot;he/she/it/they accompany<br>
&gt; *me*&quot;. &quot;X accompanies *us*&quot; would be {nutlhej}.</p>
<p>Of course, you&#39;re right.  The proximity of {maH} has misled me.  Regardless of my error, my point was that I read the {maH} as *excluding the companion*, which I thought might not have been what you intended (but which, with your clarification in the next verse below, apparently was really what you intended after all).</p>

<p>Correcting for my error, what I had wanted to express was that I read it as &quot;a person accompanies me while we (I and others, excluding this additional person) travel&quot;, and not &quot;a person accompanies me while we (I and the companion) travel&quot;.  I thought you might have intended the latter, but it seems you did indeed intend to express the former.  So there&#39;s no problem here.</p>

<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; chIrgh leng wIlengtaHvIS maH tay&#39; -<br>
&gt; Qunma&#39; wIQummeH He;<br>
&gt; QunvaD matorlaHmeH maH Hoch,<br>
&gt; wIvuvmeH; qup, ghu, chaj, maqoch,<br>
&gt; Quchqu&#39;bogh loD be&#39; je!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; To walk together to the kirk,<br>
&gt; And all together pray,<br>
&gt; While each to his great Father bends,<br>
&gt; Old men, and babes, and loving friends,<br>
&gt; And youths and maidens gay!</p>
<p>Since the speaker seems to be travelling in a group even when not counting the additional {nuv QaQ}, the {maH} is not a problem.</p>
<p>Also: An opportunity to use {SenwI&#39; rIlwI&#39; je}?</p>
<p>QeS &#39;utlh:<br>
&gt; I&#39;ll have to go away and think about this. My Klingon brain can&#39;t see a<br>
&gt; problem with {leng tIq vIlengpu&#39;} &quot;I have travelled a long journey&quot;, and<br>
&gt; especially so in a poetic context.</p>
<p>It&#39;s actually fine.  I had no problem understanding it, and it does seem like an obvious way to use the verb.  I&#39;d probably use it that way myself.  I just pointed it out because I wasn&#39;t sure if we knew for sure {leng} could take the trip as its object.  (We know that it can take the destination as its object, but I don&#39;t think we know that the object is restricted to only the destination, do we?)</p>

<p>--<br>
De&#39;vID</p>

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

Back to archive top level