tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 15 19:39:24 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >The thing that we know is correct about the use of {-Daq} is that it
> >definitely can indicate the location or area where an action occurs.
> >Meanwhile, you are not talking about the action of raising
> occurring in the
> >area of the stars. You are talking about the action of raising occuring
> >TOWARD the stars, and I don't know of any canon use of {-Daq} or any
> >explanation by Okrand of how {-Daq} works to agree with your
> interpretation.
> >[...]
> >He has stated explicitly that {-Daq} can't be used in all the
> abstract ways
> >that we use the prepositions it most often replaces. We can run
> IN a city,
> >but we can't (using {-Daq}) be IN agreement, for example. Meanwhile, the
> >other odd thing about {-Daq} is that it refers to the location WHERE THE
> >ACTION HAPPENS. The only time that it works in terms of a target of an
> >action is when it is completely optional on a special group of verbs that
> >behave like {ghoS} and {jaH}.
>
> KGT page 118:  {latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIpang!}
>
> I view this use of {-Daq} as showing the "target" of the pouring, and I'm
> absolutely convinced that the explicit object removes {pang} from being
> considered as one of those special verbs.  The translation "at" seems a
> reasonable one for most uses of {-Daq}, including the minor ambiguity that
> the English carries with it.

If the liquid is not yet in the glass, then you have not poured yet. In this
case, the locative really is the place where the action occurs. This is a
pure example of the action occuring in the glass. It's not like running to a
city. You are running to a city long before you get there, but the verb
"pour" refers to that action that occurs while part of the liquid is in the
source and part of the liquid is in the target. When that connection is
broken (when the action is no longer occuring in the location of the
pouring), then you are no longer pouring.

> >...I strongly suspect that {lurgh} is the kind of abstract
> >that can't take {-Daq}. It is not a noun that has a location. It is an
> >abstract of the concept of location that is missing a measurement of
> >distance; a vector without quantity.
>
> I wonder how you reconcile that interpretation with the existence of the
> words {tIng} and {'ev} and {chan}.

Good point. Excellent point. Their existance is not such a big deal, but he
did use them with {-Daq}. This does seem to conflict with his earlier
statement that {-Daq} did not belong on abstract nouns, but only on nouns to
literally refer to a location in space. This abstract nature is made
explicit when he explains that there is no place that can be called {chan}.
Unlike on Earth, there is no "Far East" because there is always a place East
of any other place.

But let's look at Okrand's words instead of mine. My own comments are in
[square brackets]:

************************************************
These Klingon direction nouns work in the same manner as other nouns of
location (nouns used to express prepositional concepts) such as <Dung> "area
above," <bIng> "area below," and <retlh> "area beside, area next to." Thus,
just as <nagh Dung>, literally "rock area-above" or "rock's area-above"
(<nagh> "rock") is used for "above the rock," <veng chan>, literally "city
area-eastward" or "city's eastward area" (<veng> "city") is commonly
translated "east of the city."

Depending on the sentence in which the phrase is used, the second noun in
this construction (in this case <chan> "area eastward") could take the
locative suffix <-Daq>, as in:

    veng chanDaq jIwam  "I hunt east of the city"

[Note that the action "hunt" happens in the location of the locative.]

(<veng> "city," <chan> "area eastward," <jIwam> "I hunt")

The "city in the east" (actually, "city toward the east") or "eastern city"
would be the "area-eastward city": <chan veng>.

Again, if appropriate, the locative suffix <-Daq> follows the second noun:

    chan vengDaq jIwam  "I hunt in the city in the east"

[Again, hunting occurs at the place of the locative.]

The "city's east," meaning "the eastern part of the city," would make use of
<yoS> "area, district": <veng chan yoS> (literally "city area-eastward
district" or "city's eastward-area's district").

The directional nouns may also be used with possessive suffixes.  For
example (switching from the east, for the sake of variety):

    'evwIj "northwest of me" (literally "my area-northwestward")

    'evmaj "northwest of us" (literally "our area-northwestward")

(<-wIj> "my," <-maj> "our")

These words may also be translated "northwest of here." For example:

    'evmajDaq jIwampu'  "I have hunted northwest of here"

(<'evmaj> "northwest of us," <-Daq> "locative suffix," <jIwampu'> "I have
hunted")

[Still, the location of the action is the locative.]

...     tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu'  "I've traveled all over the place"

[Again, the travelling occurs at these places, and this is a ghoS-like verb,
unlike pep.]

************************************************

Meanwhile, this gets back to deixis. Unless the deictic reference is shifted
explicitly, {chan} always means "East of the person speaking". So {chanDaq}
would be a direction relative to the speaker. It is weird because it is a
direction and not a location, but then this is not that different from
{bIng} or {Dung} or similar directional nouns long known to have a locative
function with {-Daq}.

Now the question in MY mind is, since we apparently can refer to nouns which
imply a specific direction relative to the speaker (bIng, Dung, chan,
'ev...), can this also be applied to the noun that generically refers to
direction? Particularly, if we use a noun-noun possessive construction with
the second noun being {lurgh}, does that remove the distance componant from
the locative that would have been formed by applying {-Daq} directly to the
first noun?

The problem I have with this is that all these other directional references
are deictic while using {X lurghDaq} is not.

Please pause to think about this for a minute. It's a weird concept.

If I say {chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE TO ME.

If I say {Qanqor chanDaq vIghoS}, then I'm going East RELATIVE TO KRANKOR.

But if I say {Qanqor lurghDaq vIghoS}, then I'm talking about going in a
direction which is related to both of us. Additionally, I'm not saying
anything different from {QanqorDaq vIghoS}. Remember that I don't ever have
to actually REACH Krankor for that statement to be true. All I have to do is
approach him / travel along the path that is related to him. What is {lurgh}
adding here?

I'm getting confused. The Krankor-shifted deixis relates to Krankor himself,
at his core, not in any real direction relative to Krankor, though it is
indeed Krankor's direction, but if it is Krankor's direction, then what
direction is that relative to Krankor, but it's NO direction relative to
Krankor because it is the direction Krankor is in, but...

> >...the action does not occur in the area of the direction of the
> >stars. The direction is the bearing of the target. It implies
> aiming again,
> >and that's not really a locative.
>
> I'm a lot less clear than you are on the distinction you're making between
> locations and directions.  How would you say something like "walk forward"
> if not with a locative?

tlhop yIghoS. yIyIt!

I'm not remembering if {yIt} is one of the verbs that acts like {ghoS}.

> >> What would be the difference of saying "I point at the star"
> and "I point
> >> towards the star".
> >> The direction of the action is identical but the first is a
> >> direction where
> >> 'I can see where the target is' and the second where 'I know where the
> >> target is' (whether I can see it or not)
> >
> >I am uncertain that a large sampling of objective people would agree with
> >your interpretation of the difference between "I point at the
> star" and "I
> >point towards the star".
>
> My interpretation, for what it's worth, is that using "at"
> implies that the
> star is a definite target, and "towards" implies that it's just a
> convenient reference point.

Odd wording, but with pause I think I understand.

Meanwhile, to get back to the original question, I do not believe that
"raise"/pep is a verb that behaves like {ghoS}. I do not believe that it can
have a target as its direct object. The direct object is the thing one is
raising. So, if you use a locative with that verb, then the locative is not
a direct object. It is just a locative. As such, it tells you the location
where the action of the verb occurs.

Add to it that the verb already implies deixis, since you can't raise
something unless you have a gravitational field to oppose or something we
can agree on as a floor or ground or equivalent to move the object away
from. pep = bIngvo' DungDaq vay' vIHmoHlu'. Talking about direction is
uncharacteristically redundant with this verb. I suspect that the original
poster of this question chooses to add "toward the stars" to imply distance
and enthusiasm and not direction. "Raise your betleHmey REALLY, REALLY
HIGH!" For that, {pepchu'} would be better than getting all tangled up in
{Hovmey lurghDaq}.

The rest of us have dragged this into a more generic argument which will
likely go on for far longer than any of us would like, but to address the
original question, the more I look at {Hovmey lurghDaq betleHmeyraj tIpep},
the less I like it. It is awkward use of the wrong tools to accomplish the
intended end. {betleHmeyraj tIpepchu'! Hovmey yIqaD!} That will give you
your poetic reference without getting tangled up in locatives. [Why do I
hear Bob Dylan's voice?]

"TAANGLD UUUP in LOOOOOcaTIIVs..."

> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

charghwI' 'utlh



Back to archive top level