tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 31 08:29:29 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Near and far

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'?
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 . . .

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,

yuQ bavtaH Duj.
The ship orbits the planet.

Stardate 99083.4

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Boozer <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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
>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 -
>{jaH} even, which MO also discussed in your HolQeD interview.

Back to archive top level