tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 21 15:49:12 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: compound words
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: compound words
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:50:22 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:08:34 -0700 (PDT) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 97-06-19 21:12:25 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
> << > qep'a' loSDIch vIpawpu'DI'
>
> We've seen that {paw} does not necessarily take an object. We have the line
>
> from Power Klingon's joke:
>
> Qo'noSDaq paw cha' DIvI' beq
>
> Therefore, you really should say
>
> qep'a' loSDIchDaq jIqawpu'DI'
> As soon as I have arrived at qep'a' loSDIch >>
>
> TKD p28 Sec. 3.3.5 Syntactic Markers: "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."
>
> "If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is
> somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."
>
> While needing further evidence as to which verbs, other than {ghoS},
> specified, we can use in this manner, I have sensed that verbs of motion may
> take a direct object without adding the N5 {-Daq}. {paw} is such a verb of
> motion.
I suggest that you probably are sensing incorrectly. The
definition of {ghoS} already includes terms that in English
require no preposition, like "approach". I don't approach to the
house. I approach the house.
Similarly, other verbs of motion in English do not require
prepositions. A moon orbits a planet. You can say that it orbits
around a planet, but that sounds strange just like {juHDaq
jIghoS}. You enter a room. You don't have to say that you enter
into a room.
Meanwhile, you don't arrive a room. You arrive AT a room. You
don't arrive a meeting. You arrive AT a meeting. See? Add that
Okrand has used the verb {paw} and when he did, he used {-Daq}
and the intransitive prefix. That's even more evidence that you
are perhaps missing a point here.
> Further, I would say {yuQvam yImej} rather than {yuQvamDaq yImej}.
Here, I completely agree with you. Though I don't consider
{yuQvamvo' yImej} to be entirely wrong, I do consider it to be
oddly phrased. {yuQvamDaq yImej} is gibberish, unless you are
talking to someone who is not already on this planet. "Leave
(where you are to come) to this planet.
> There
> could be some argument {yuQvamvo' yImej}. I say {vergh tlheD Duj} rather
> than {verghDaq tlheD Duj} or {verghvo' tlheD Duj}.
I could accept that, though I'm not certain without any canon.
> Looks like another area to be proven!
It has certainly been discussed before.
> peHruS
charghwI'