tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 15 15:36:52 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov

Now that I've read several posts on this topic, this is getting really

ja' charghwI':

> 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.

Sounds logical. The only thing I don't understand is the <-Daq> in the
second example. If <veng> is the object, why does it take a locative

> 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?

HIja'. jIyajchoH. This has some relationship to the German "wohnen" vs
"bewohnen". While "wohnen" is intransitive and could be used for any
area which includes the place where I live, from "Ich wohne in diesem
Haus" (I live in this house) to "Ich wohne in Deutschland" (I live in
Germany), "bewohnen" is transitive and is usually only used for the
building where I live, e. g. "Ich bewohne dieses Haus" (I live in this

Let me see if I understand:

<vIHoH> vs <jIHoH>: The first means that I killed someone as a single
event. The second one may mean that I'm a professional killer, like
"What's your job?" - "I kill."

<Duj vIchIj> vs <DujDaq jIchIj>: 1st: I am the navigator of the ship.
2nd: I could imagine this use in context with a ferry onto which I drive
my car.

Fascinating. I've never noticed the full variety of meanings these
nuances can produce. I've used both forms before (not with <cha'>
however...), but I've never spent too much time to actually think about
them so intensely.


> charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level