tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 15 14:20:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
I totally agree with pagh on this {naDev vIDab} vs. {naDev
jIDab} issue. The interview with Okrand reveals that for verbs
that relate to locations with their direct object that the basic
formula is for the sentence to take one of three forms:
<X>Daq jI<Y>
<X>Daq vI<Y>
<X> vI<Y>
The first one states that the action <Y> happens at the location
<X>. The second and third are equal in meaning and imply most
typically that the destination is <X>, even though the entire
action need not occur at <X>. [At this point, it sounds like I'm
arguing a different case. Stick with me a bit farther.]
This is the way he handled {leng} in particular. The difference
between {vengvamDaq jIleng} and {vengvamDaq vIleng} is that in
the first case, all my roaming happens in this city, while in
the second case, I travel TO the city.
I'd argue that what we are talking about is a matter of focus.
The first instance is just a locative for the action. It happens
at the location. I roam in the city much the same way that I
eat in the city or drink in the city or sing in the city. In the
second example, the verb has a special relationship with the
locative. With or without {-Daq}, the noun is the direct object
of the verb {leng}. I would not eat the city, drink the city or
sing the city, but I do travel-to the city.
Do this to the verb {Dab} and the most special, focussed
relationship of any noun with {Dab} is that of one's home. I
dwell in my home. This place is my home.
This is somewhat different from the more general idea that I,
without a direct object, dwell, and the dwelling that I do
happens in this place.
To me, it would even mark a difference between the idea that
{naDev vIDab} means, "This place is my home," while {naDev
jIDab} means something like the {naDev} is some larger unit that
includes the place I dwell, and perhaps other verb actions as
well, as in "I live and work in Virginia." I live in one part of
Virginia and I work in a different part of Virginia, but I do
dwell and work in Virginia. Meanwhile, I dwell at Shannon Farm.
Its boundaries are the boundaries of my home. It would be less
accurate to say that I dwell-in Virginia, since the whole of
Virginia is not my home.
Is this making sense to others?
charghwI' 'utlh
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:00:06 -0800 (PST) "Andeen, Eric"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lab peHruS:
>
> > In a message dated 1/14/1999 12:27:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> > << The full, formal answer would probably be <naDev vIDab>, but in a less
> > formal setting, I can see how the shorter <jIDab> might work.
> > >>
>
> > I believe even in formal settings that would be <naDev jIDab>.
> > The adverbial noun <naDev> obviously is not the object of the
> > sentence. I am not specifying any object. In parallel to
> > <bIjatlh 'e' yImev> I might say "You can't live here" as
> > <naDev bIDab 'e' chaw'lu'be'>.
>
> Why not? <naDev> is a noun meaning "here, hereabouts", and <Dab> is a verb
> taking a place as its object. It's true that <naDev> includes a locative
> sense in its meaning, so it can act as a locative without a <-Daq> suffix,
> but I see no reason it cannot be the object of a verb if it makes sense as
> the object.
>
> I see a subtle but important difference between <naDev jIDab> and <naDev
> vIDab>. The first is saying that my home, which is not important to that
> particular sentence, is somewhere in the area described by <naDev>. That
> area could be as small as a few square feet (or 'ujmey), or as large as a
> planet, depending on the context. It does not attach any particular sense of
> ownership to the <naDev> area - just that my home is somewhere in it. <naDev
> vIDab>, on the other hand, says that the <naDev> area *is* my home. In this
> case, if the area is something larger than a dwelling, the sentence may take
> on a bit more meaning - the speaker is identifying himself with the area.
>
> As an example, if I were standing on the street, not close to any house in
> particular, and someone said <naDev jIDab>, I would assume his house was
> somewhere in the vicinity. However, if someone said <naDev vIDab>, I would
> think he lived *in the street*.
>
> This same argument could be applied to any form of <X-Daq jIDab> vs. <X
> vIDab>.
>
> Also, I don't know if <'e' X-lu'> is outright illegal, but <net X> is
> certainly prefferable. Also, consider <tuch> instead of <chaw'be'>.
>
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian