tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 19 09:24:14 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

ja' charghwI'

> > If <veng> is the object, why does it take a locative
> > suffix?
> [...QIj charghwI'...]
> 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.

jIHvaD pabvetlh DaQIjmo' qatlho'

> > 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.

I wanted to choose verbs which were not too close to the example because
I wanted to see if I understood this whole matter.

> 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.

I think I understand. jIyajlaw'. 


Back to archive top level