tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 11 12:04:00 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "X-Daq X-Daq je"

According to Mark Mandel:
> 
> nughItlh ghunchu'wI':
>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >yaHwIjDaq juHwIjDaq je De'wI'mey vIghun.
> 
> I need some opinions from the list at large here -- can locatives be
> conjoined like this?
>  <<<<<<<<<<<<<

I agree that the original example looks good to me, and that
the general rule is similar to the one expressed below, but I'm
not wild about the specific example given below.

> I say they can. <je> (along with <qoj> and <pagh>) joins nouns. A Type 5
> suffix, such as <-Daq>, doesn't change a noun into something else. It's
> still a noun, and <je> can join two (or more) such nouns. Therefore, I
> support pagh's usage in
> (1)      yaHwIjDaq juHwIjDaq je De'wI'mey vIghun.

jIQochbe'.

> vuDwIj 'oH wuqvam'e' je: You can also use a noun-conjunction to join
> nouns with *different* Type 5 suffixes. For example, if you ask me to
> name some of the spaceports I know, I might answer:
> (2)      Qo'noSDaq tera'Daq romuluSvo' je vIchIjpu'.
>          I've navigated to Kronos and to Terra and from Romulus.

I didn't know that {wuq} was a noun. I don't think it is one.
I'm pretty sure it is not one, so I think {wuqvam'e'} is a
non-word.

Example (2) is quite confused. There is no apparent object, yet
with the prefix {vI-} one expects one. I probably would have
expressed this as:

Qo'noS tera' romuluS je vIghoSta'.

The question was about port familiarity, so it doesn't really
matter which was I was going at each of these ports. This
statement basically means that I have accomplished travelling
the course including Kronos, Earth and Romulus. We know that
with {ghoS}, nouns relating to places are usually the object of
the verb and don't require {-Daq} or {-vo'}, though as humans,
we tend to use {-vo'} for the sake of clarity when appropriate.

Also, I'd note that if you are speaking Klingon to Klingons and
you state that your place of origin is Romulus, well... your
near future is likely to be insecure.

> Granted, this is an unusual situation. If you ask me what I was doing on a
> certain date, I'd be more likely to answer
> (3)      Qo'noSvo' tera' maS vIchIjtaH.
>          I was navigating from Kronos to Earth's moon.
>  with no conjunction. I deliberately formulated the context of example (2)
> to allow for disconnected destinations and origins. But I can't see any
> syntactic reason to reject it.

Reject is a strong word here. I would not reject it, though I
might raise an eyebrow toward the person making such a
statement. It just sounds odd. When talking of discrete places
where an action has taken place, using conjunctions to connect
locatives sounds fine. When talking of motion including
visitations to different locations, the conjunction sounds less
obviously necessary. The locatives describe the path, much like
the Montrealer's track might be called the New York to Montreal
track, rather than the New York and Montreal track. The
Crescent Star might be the Charlottesville to D.C. to New York
track, rather than the Charlottesville and D.C. and New York
track.

Maybe this is an English idiom? I think on one of the trading
cards, there are multiple locatives. Can anyone pull up this
canon? I think it is the one about the Bird of Prey.

>       marqem, tlhIngan veQbeq la'Hom -- Heghbej ghIHmoHwI'pu'!
>      Subcommander Markemm, 
>             Klingon Sanitation Corps -- Death to Litterbugs!
> 
>                          Mark A. Mandel
>     Dragon Systems, Inc. : speech recognition : +1 617 965-5200
>   320 Nevada St. :  Newton, Mass. 02160, USA : [email protected]

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level