tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 20:45:40 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: yIt



ja' SuStel:
>Though all of your examples do succeed at being more exact, I much prefer
>charghwI''s {juH vIghoS; jIyIt.}

As do I.  I offered them as more explicit, not necessarily as "superior".

>I've been getting more and more of the
>impression that Klingon has many of these jammed-together sentences.  The
>first glaring one was {'uSDaj chop; chev} from Power Klingon, though I think
>there were some before it.

I've always liked the penultimate proverb from The Klingon Way:
QaghmeylIj tIchID, yIyoH - Have the courage to admit your mistakes.

>But now I'm getting confused.  When I first saw the Okrand interview with
>the motion verbs, I could see {-Daq} seeming to be redefined.  charghwI'
>insists that what was happening was Okrand confirming the usage of a few
>select verbs, and since I wasn't there I am forced to accept his
>explanation.  But it seems like the nature of {-Daq} is STILL being
>considered here.  Since when have we been concerned about the ambiguity of
>{juHDaq jIyIt}?

I'm not bothered by the ambiguity.  I just see a bit of a clarification of
"...a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as {ghoS}..."
(TKD page 28).

>While {juH vIghoS; jIyIt} has always been an option, no one
>would ever have complained about {juHDaq jIyIt} until now.  The ambiguity
>has always been considered perfectly normal, and TKD backs this up.

I didn't complain about it.  I just answered the question "why not use it
instead of a two-sentence phrase", pointing out how it had more ambiguity
than the other phrase.

>Are we always to come up with alternatives to {-Daq}?  Does {-Daq} no longer
>sufficiently mean "to" as it does "at"?  Is it now too ambiguous to use with
>the "to" meaning that we'll be telling others to use something else?  What's
>the deal here?  Are we redefining {-Daq} ourselves, has it been redefined
>for us, or have we always been using it wrong?

We're not getting a redefinition of {-Daq}.  We're just seeing how its
use with verbs already having a "locative notion" implies an "at" more
strongly than a "to", because the "to" is already part of the verb.

>I guess I'm rather concerned
>with the "Oh, yes, I knew that" attitude I'm seeing with some of the list
>members.

I think it's more of an "Oh, I see.  That makes sense.  I accept it."

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level