tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 15 13:10:01 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: KLBC: Translation

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:27:33 -0800 Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Nick Nicholas writes:
> >I still disagree, because I think this is an unduly restrictive reading of
> >TKD. The dictionary says ghoS *and other directional verbs* need not take
> >-Daq. 

It's not nice to imply quotation when one is not quoting 
anything. I believe that the badly paraphrased statement is:
"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, 
such as {ghoS} /approach, proceed/. The locative suffix need not 
be used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs."

I don't see "other directional verbs" and "verbs whose meanings 
include locative notions" as being different descriptions of the 
same set of words. The simple truth is Okrand gives us nothing 
to determine which words other than {ghoS} can be treated this 
way, except for words we naturally use that way without thinking 
about it, like {'el}, {Dech}, {bav} or such. The association 
between objects as locations and verbs indicating entry, 
surrounding or orbiting is quite natural.

I don't see {jaH} as being a member of that set of words. Okrand 
could easily correct me in this if I'm wrong, but so far that 
has not happened. I do not assume that every verb implying 
motion can use a noun as its object.

> >As far as I can see it, if one directional verb other than ghoS can
> >take no -Daq, it's jaH. David and I have locked horns on this in Much Ado,
> >and I've referred it to Mark for arbitration :-) .

Allow me to join David [as I sharpen my horns]. You appear to 
have overgeneralized based upon your own possible 
misinterpretation of this case. {ghoS} is clearly an unusual 
word, given that the English definition is not so succinct as 
most, and the different words in the definition are not so 
clearly synonyms as most. This suggests that the word has a 
meaning for which there is no clear single parallel in English.

My own chosen interpretation is that {ghoS} implies motion along 
a specific, intentional course. Any noun used as an object of 
{ghoS} is something associated with that course, since courses 
rarely have names of their own independent of some place or 
object associated with it. That's why {ghoS} can mean to 
approach or go away from. It's the ONLY way I can interpret this 
verb so either case works.

Meanwhile, {jaH} seems quite naturally intransitive. All the 
canon we have for it is intransitive. It's definition is an 
intransitive English word. I can't find a reason to think it is 
transitive for any purpose, let alone as some abstract 
association you've made up with the verb {ghoS} by inserting the 
descriptor "directional" where Okrand never used it.

In English, "go" and "approach" are both directional verbs. One 
is intransitive while the other uses a noun to indicate a 
location assocated with the action of the verb.
 
> I don't think it's a matter of {-Daq} being optional; it's a matter of
> whether the place word is being used as a locative or an object.
> I'll point out the canonical {may'Daq jaHDI' SuvwI' juppu'Daj lonbe'}
> (TKW page 38).  {jaH} here doesn't have an object; it uses a locative.
> We know for sure that {ghoS} goes either way (TKD page 28), but we do
> not know that {jaH} can be treated similarly.  My policy is to err on
> the conservative side.

jIQochbe'chu' jay'!

> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'

Back to archive top level