Re: qa'ralvaD QInvam'e'

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:27:59 +0200 veyDer <veyder@kki.net.pl> 
wrote:

> jatlh qa'ral: 
>  
> >qatlhIj.  qaStaHvIS cha' Hogh bIQ'a' qIjDaq (Black Sea) jIghIQ.  DaHjaj  
> >jIvumqa'DI' QInlIjvam vIlaD.  cha'maH Hu' QIn vIngeHbogh DaHevbe'law'.  
> > chaq pongDaj vIchoHmo' Datu'be'.  vaj vIngeHqa': 
> > 
> > *Poland* Do' law' *Russia* Do' puS 'e' vItulbej. 
> > veyDer, venglIj yIngu'!  pa' ghu' yIDel! 
>  
> qa'ral, QInwIj DaHevbe'law', vaj vengwIj vIDelqa': 
>  
> 	*Legionowo*Daq 'oH vengwIj'e'. naDev javmaHSaD rewbe'pu' 
        yIn. *Legionowo*vo' *Warsaw*Daq cha'maH loS *kilometers* 
        Hoplu'. tamqu' veng 'oH'e'. 

Sorry for the intrusion. I want to be helpful here. We don't 
have a lot of experience using {Hop} and I'd like to help steer 
it toward what I'm fairly certain I understand its best usage 
would be according to Okrand, since I talked with him about this 
in the interview in HolQeD earlier this year.

First of all, I don't remember him saying anything about {Hop} 
being used with units of measure. It doesn't take a direct 
object at all, since it can be used as an adjective. One 
might argue that a noun phrase describing a distance might 
count as one of those mysterious nouns serving some other 
function than direct object without a Type 5 suffixe, but I 
think it is a bit of a stretch. I'd probably have said this as 
something like:

*Warsaw*Daq Hopbe' *Legionowo*. cha'maH loS *kilometers* neH 
lulengnISlu'.

or

cha'maH loS *kilometers* 'aD *Warsaw* *Legionowo* joj He.

> 	Da'Ho', naDev *Hov leng* vIbejlaHbe' (neH *ST:DS9* - wa'DIch *season*).

I'm assuming that's {Do'Ha'} instead of {Da'Ho'}, right? Also, 
if you are using {neH} to mean "merely" or "only", it has to 
FOLLOW what it modifies. Same goes for {wa'DIch}. It has to 
follow *season*.

>       pIj cha'lu' *Hov leng: wa'DIch qep*'e'. vaj *video 
>       tapes* vIwuvnIS. 

Word order. This is your next mission. Tighten up your word 
order, especially when you use {-lu'}. You are using all the 
right words. Just sort them out better.

> 	vaj, bIQ'a' qIjDaq DaghIQpu''a'? majQa'! 'IHqu' bIQ'a' 
>       qIjDaq'e'. pa' vISaHpu' je *Russia*Daq vIghIQDI' (wa'maH 
>       ben).

I think you'd be clearer if you said {jISaHpu'}. If {pa'} is 
being used as a direct object, it needs to be a noun and not as 
a locative noun, which heavily suggests its "room" meaning 
instead of its "thereabouts" meaning.

This is more my opinion than a certainty thing. It's just that 
Okrand says that {pa'} meaning "thereabouts" is one of the very 
few words that never has {-Daq} added to it; that {pa'Daq} 
ALWAYS means "in the room". That implies to me that the normal 
use of {pa'} as "thereabouts" is locative. If you used 
{jISaHpu'}, then you'd be using {pa'} as a locative and this 
would make sense. Using {vISaHpu'} uses {pa'} as a normal noun 
acting as direct object, and that lack of {-Daq} in its meaning 
suggests the "room" meaning for {pa'} -- In my humble opinion. 
We've never seen Okrand use {pa'} meaning "thereabouts" as 
anything but a locative. There's a newly arcane use of locatives 
as direct object of motion verbs which can have destinations, 
like {ghoS} or {jaH}, but I'm not willing to think that {SaH} 
counts as one of these exceptional verbs. There's no movement, 
so there is no destination.

Additionally, I don't think {SaH} ever means "be present at". It 
either means "be present", which doesn't take a direct object, 
or it means "care about", which DOES take a direct object. So, 
when I see {pa' vISaHpu'}, I read it to mean "I have cared about 
the room". Meanwhile, {pa' jISaHpu'} would more likely mean "I 
have been there."

>       *Georgia*Daq vISaHpu'. Da'Ho', pa noH'e'. 

Again, I'd read this to mean "I have cared about it in Georgia." 
I'd use {jISaHpu'} to mean "I have been present in Georgia."

> 	*Eastern Europe*Daqvo' wej jeSwI'pu''e' 'e' vISov. 

You can't use {-Daqvo'}. But you know that.

>       qelIS, jupwI' naDev SaH, 'ach neH QInmey laD ghaH. chaq 
>       wIponchugh, nughItlh (qelIS, SoHvaD 'oH, ghItlh tagh!! 
>       }};-)) ). 

I was initially quite lost in your first sentence. Then I 
recognized that you are putting {neH} in front of what it needs 
to follow again, and I suspect that you put the subject of {SaH} 
in front of it instead of following it. Word order! My guess is 
that you were trying to say:

naDev SaH qelIS, jupwI' 'ach QInmey laD neH.

"My friend, Kahless is here, but he merely reads messages [he 
doesn't write any]."

> 	toH, rIn QInwIj'e'. 

maj. qechmeylIj vItIv. mu' *order* yIDub!
  
> Qapla'
> --
> 
> ===============================================
> wa'maH Hut ghu'meyvaD Qap wa''uy' wa' laHmey
> ===============================================
> veyDer

charghwI'