tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 12 13:59:07 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sargh Quj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sargh Quj
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:57:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:52:14 -0500 TPO <[email protected]> wrote:
> >... He Qatlh ghoS; ghIq Hevam lughoSchu' je latlh lIghwI'pu' 'e' lunID.
>
> With our current understanding of ghoS, should this be:
> He QatlhDaq ghoS; ghIq HevamDaq ghoSchu' ...
>
> [He Qatlh ghoS] would read "he went TO a difficult path"
> [He QatlhDaq ghoS] would read "ON a difficult path, he went", "he was doing
> his {going} on a difficult path"
I disagree. {ghoS} is a special verb. At one of the qep'a', I
had the opportunity to briefly talk with Okrand about it. I told
him that as I understood it from the gloss, given all the
seemingly unconnected meanings of the verb, it seemed to refer
to motion following a path and the direct object was something
associated with the path. Usually, that was the destination, but
not always. He said that was an interesting way of expressing
the meaning and that it was accurate.
Given that, {He Qatlh ghoS} may very well simply mean "He
traveled along a difficult path." I honestly think that because
of the unusual nature of the meaning of {ghoS}, the {-Daq} is
quite optional and doesn't really change the meaning. This would
not necessarily be true for other motion-related,
destination-related verbs, like {jaH} or {leng} or {chegh}.
> >tlha'laHbe'DI' wa' lIghwI', DIrDajDaq pIqaD "S" ghItlhmeH ghaH pe'
> >ghaH. vaghlogh lujDI', S-a-r-g-h pe'DI', QujtaH 'e' chaw'be' chut.
> >(Qu'vatlh! pIqaD vagh chovnatlhmey lo'laH'a' mu' {Sargh}? chaq loSlogh
> >neH lujlaH tlhIngan QujwI'!)
>
> If he was using the written Okrand phonetic system used by humans.
You have a point.
> DloraH
charghwI'