Re: Nautical Directions/Navigation

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:14:47 -0500 SuSvaj 
<zayericd@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:

> At 09:27 AM 12/13/99 -0500, DloraH wrote:
> >>>
> >>>If you do use ma- then you have to use -Daq, 
> >>
> >>Not so.  When useing "ghoS", the "Daq" suffix is not requiered.
> >
> >If you have ma- on the ghoS you do! (if there is an object)
> >
> >
> >nImbuS wej wIghoS
> >- we go to Nimbus III
> >
> >nImbuS wejDaq wIghoS
> >- we go to Nimbus III
> >
> >nImbuS wejDaq maghoS
> >- ON Nimbus III, we are going (somewhere)
> >
> >nImbuS wej maghoS
> >[This combination is not allowed]

SuSvaj replied:

> I still can't shake the feeling that the implicit locative notion in "ghoS"
> makes this acceptable.  It may be that after hearing this in STV I simply
> accepted it as cannon and got used to the idea of this kind of
> construction.  Does anyone else have an opinion they'd like to chime in here?
> 
> SuSvaj

charghwI' replies:

Yes.

I believe that it is really simple.

The locative implication in {ghoS} is that its DIRECT OBJECT 
can be a noun marking the location with or without a locative 
suffix. That's it. There's nothing else exceptional about {ghoS}

So, a noun can be the destination of the travelling 
one is doing when ghoSlu', IF THAT NOUN IS THE DIRECT OBJECT OF 
THE VERB {ghoS}.

If it is the direct object, then you need a prefix that implies 
a direct object. Like {wI-}. You don't get that with {ma-}.

In the example:

nImbuS wej XXghoS

where XX is either ma- or wI-, realize that no matter how 
exceptional {ghoS} may be, {nImbuS wej} needs a grammatical 
justification to exist in the sentence. It can be the direct 
object, in which case you need to use {wI-} and you can't use 
{ma-}, or you can add {-Daq} to it so it becomes an obvious 
locative, and then you can choose to either use {ma-} or {wI-}. 
Grammatically, both work, though the meaning is a bit different.

If you use {wI-}, then whether you have {-Daq} or not on {nImbuS 
wej}, it means that you are travelling along a course associated 
with nImbuS wej. Most likely, you are travelling from somewhere 
else to nImbuS wej. In this construction, the locative or direct 
object is almost ALWAYS the destination.

If you use {-Daq} and {ma-}, then you are using nImbuS wej as a 
locative telling you where the action of {ghoS} is happening. 
Most likely, the entire path of your travel is on nImbuS wej, so 
nImbuS wej is not really your destination. It is just the 
location where the travelling occurs.

Now, if this explanation doesn't satisfy you, would you mind 
explaining why you are singularly sustaining the idea that you 
can use {*nImbuS wej maghoS} and be speaking legitimate Klingon 
according to all the rules of grammar that have been explained 
to us? Are you trying to argue that in this case {nImbuS wej} is 
one of those nouns that is mysteriously functioning as something 
other than a direct object or a locative? If so, would you mind 
explaining what its function is? I definitely don't see it and 
could stand some illumination. I'm willing to confess that I've 
been wrong if you can show me the grammatical explanation for 
what {nImbuS wej} is doing, grammatically in the collection of 
words that you would call a sentence: {*nImbuS wej maghoS}.

charghwI'