tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 02 08:32:37 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: ghoS & jaH
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:28:54 -0500 Ken Nisewanger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the difference... or better yet how would I in my usage distinguish
> between ghoS & jaH.
Pardon me for barging in here on this, but these are words
I've had the rare honor of discussing with Okrand, so I
feel a responsibility to speak on it.
First, I had the opportunity to ask about {ghoS} at a
qep'a'. I explained that my understanding of the verb was
that it meant to move along a definite path. The direct
object is a noun associated with that path. Most typically,
that direct object noun is the destination of the path, but
that is not the only case.
Okrand smiled and said that he thought I had a particularly
good understanding of that verb. ghoSlu'DI', there is
progress made. You move from where you've been to where you
are going. It is definitely directional.
At that time, I thought {jaH} was completely different. It
implied motion, likely from a place to a place, like
{ghoS}, but there isn't a reference to the path or the
destination or the starting point. I thought it was
basically a stative verb and would not take a direct
object. This model of the language was orderly and
consistent.
Unfortunately, it didn't turn out to be correct. When I
later interviewed Okrand for an issue of HolQeD, I was
particularly interested in clarifying the relationship
between a troublesome collection of verbs and either their
status as stative verbs or their appropriate subset of
nouns that can serve as direct objects for them. What is
the relationship between these verbs and their direct
objects?
Okrand surprised me by not describing {jaH} as stative. In
fact, it works exactly like {ghoS} in terms of having a
direct object which is a noun stating the destination of
the motion. Note that the direct object of {ghoS}
doesn't have to be the destination. It has to be
something associated with the path or course, most
typically the destination, but not always.
Meanwhile, the direct object of {jaH} is, so far as we
know, ALWAYS the destination. We have no evidence
that it can be anything else. Okrand's attention was
focussed on making the following point. These three are
correct:
tachDaq jIjaH.
tachDaq vIjaH.
tach vIjaH.
The following is incorrect:
tach jIjaH.
The meaning of {tachDaq jIjaH} is that I am in a bar and
I'm going. Likely, I'm moving toward departing the bar,
since if you go long enough when you start out in a bar,
you'll end up somewhere else.
{tachDaq vIjaH} and {tach vIjaH} both have the same
meaning. I am somewhere other than the bar and I'm going
and when I stop going, I'll be in the bar.
That makes it fairly indistinguishable from {ghoS}, if you
just think about the grammar. There is still, perhaps, a
subtle shade of meaning that is different between them. I
know that, for myself, as a matter of style, there are
definitely times that I prefer one verb over the other.
Except for the two episodes described above, I have not
confirmed what is to follow with Okrand. It is my opinion,
though I consider it to be as informed an opinion as any of
us have at this point.
{jaH} focusses on the activity of moving. It doesn't need
any sense of specific direction, though it may optionally
acquire one. Maybe the motion has a target. Maybe it
doesn't. I see it has describing a meaning roughly half-way
between {ghoS} and {leng}. {ghoS} is very directional. It
not only has a sense of direction, but it has a sense of
the passage of time. You approach a destination both in
space and time and {ghoS} refers to that progress along a
definite course or path. {jaH} is focussed much more on the
more local sense that there is an activity involving
motion, but not necessarily a specific course or path.
{leng} practically evades any sense of path, though it,
too, can have a destination. Consider that the path one
travels to a destination with {leng} would be rather
indirect. You'll get there, eventually. You don't really
know when and you don't especially care.
Two friends and I, in Denmark, went looking for a hardware
store. We never found one, but we had a terrific day
stumbling across bakeries and arguing over pastry
selection, joking with the gadgets we found in department
stores, arguing over which women we discovered on the
sidewalk were more attractive and why, talking each other
into ordering menu items at restaurants and generally being
Ugly Americans In Denmark. We had a great time. *Hardware
Store* wIleng.
Meanwhile, if I were to describe the flight to Denmark,
<<*Denmark* wIghoS>>, and if I were talking of our
incomplete plans to go to Denmark before we bought tickets,
<<*Denmark* wIjaH>>.
So, {ghoS} refers to a plan as much as to a destination.
Your intention involves the entire path between where
you've been and where you are going and there is a sense of
time and your current point in that time just as it
involves a path and your current point along that path.
{jaH} simply refers to your state of being in motion. Maybe
that motion is aimed at something or maybe not. If it is
aimed at something, it may not have a specific path or
schedule for getting there. The focus is on the activity of
intentionally being in motion.
{leng} refers mostly to your lack of attachment to your
current postion. Your presence is temporary. If you have a
goal, your focus is still on all the places you'll be
between here and that goal, and likely you haven't even
decided what all these places will be yet. You'll discover
that along the way.
Again, this is just my spin on these verbs, backed up by
these two conversations with Okrand. Those conversations
definitely involved these verbs, but they did not
specifically address the differences between them. Anything
about that is my own synthesis based upon those earlier
conversations.
> Thank you,
>
> Ken
> Kalos/qeqloS
charghwI'