Re: Near and far

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:48:32 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli 
<SuStel@email.msn.com> wrote:

> The tricky part here is that the HolQeD interview completely contradicts
> much Klingon canon.  Your example is contradicted.  According to the
> interview, the sentence would have to be
> 
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq wIjaHlaH'a'?
> or
> naDevvo' vaS'a' wIjaHlaH'a'?
> 
> The way it is, {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?} means something more like
> "While we're in the Great Hall, can we go from here?"  There are, I believe,
> numerous contradictions between what Okrand said in the interview, and the
> actual examples we have.  If someone can justify a few of these for me . . .
> .

Good point. I personally preferred keeping {jaH} intransitive, 
fitting the canon example you just pointed out. Especially with 
the pairing of {naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq} there is such an obvious 
direction set up that intransitive {jaH} makes perfect sense. 
Meanwhile, I felt less like guiding Okrand to suit my 
preferences than to just bring him to spell out as much detail 
as possible.

Likely this is a decision he has made after reflection that 
didn't occur before the example. Also, likely, he would argue 
that he spelled out enough wiggle room in the interview (the 
part about stick-in-the-muds) that both can be considered 
correct, though I suspect your suggestions would be more 
technically correct than the canon example, all while the canon 
example would still be acceptable.
 
> By the way, the interview also gave us an answer to a long-standing
> question: the object of {bav} is the thing which is orbited (planet, star,
> etc.).
> 
> yuQ bavtaH Duj.
> The ship orbits the planet.

That one I definitely expected. It was good to have it confirmed.
 
> SuStel
> Stardate 99083.4

charghwI' 'utlh
HovpoH 99087.46
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@midway.uchicago.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Near and far
> 
> 
> >: I have a strong preferece for {Y-Daq Hop X.} It makes a lot more
> >: sense. From a reference point at Y's location, X is far. {-vo'}
> >: is not a locative. It is a direction. It implies motion. {Hop}
> >: does not imply motion. Use {-Daq}.
> >
> >That's how I read the interview too.  But since MO's examples used {Sum}, I
> >wasn't 100% certain.  We do have one clear example using both {-Daq} and
> {-vo'}
> >together in PK:
> >
> > naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
> > Can we get to the Great Hall from here?
> >
> >Here, there is definitely movement implied - going from here to there -
> using
> >{jaH} even, which MO also discussed in your HolQeD interview.