tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 18 14:09:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:04:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:08:28 -0800 (PST) Christiane Scharf
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that I've read several posts on this topic, this is getting really
> interesting.
>
> ja' charghwI':
>
> > I totally agree with pagh on this {naDev vIDab} vs. {naDev
> > jIDab} issue...
> > 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
> suffix?
That's one of those arbitrary things. In TKD, Okrand said that
you could have {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS}, but you did not
need it. His language even suggested that putting {-Daq} on it
might sound a bit odd, but it would be acceptable. My sense is
that it continues to be this way.
The oddness here is that the object of {ghoS} and similar verbs
is ALWAYS understood to be a location, hence a locative. So, you
CAN explicitly indicate that it is a locative with the locative
suffix, but since the object of {ghoS} and the like is ALWAYS
locative, the suffix becomes superfluous and it is usually
omitted.
This strikes us as odd because we don't usually think of a
direct object as having a Type 5 suffix. After all, Type 5
exists to explain nouns that are neither subjects nor direct
objects of the main verb, right? Well, it appears that this is a
generality that linguists have made, but it is an imperfect one.
The simple truth is the {-Daq} can be there or it can be
omitted. I personally favor omitting it as a matter of style,
but Okrand has repeatedly stated that it is fine to have the
{-Daq} there.
...
> > 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
> house).
Daj.
> 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."
While that is not quite related to the previous topic, it is
very close, and it is accurate. The point is that the particular
entity you kill when you say {jIHoH} is unimportant to the
statement.
> <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.
Interesting. Again, this is not quite related to the issue
above, since {chIj} is not quite related to {ghoS} the way that
{jaH} and {leng} apparently do. The direct object of {chIj} is
the vessel you are navigating. It is not the place you navigate
to. See?
Meanwhile, I think your interpretation of {DujDaq jIchIj} is an
accurate one. I'd be initially tempted to think that in this
case, {DujDaq} could be the destination, but sticking to the
strict meaning of locatives as Klingon grammar has been
described, the navigating here is happening on the ship.
> 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.
There are a lot of facets to this jewel. Enjoy them.
> HovqIj
>
>
> > charghwI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh