tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 18 03:42:13 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -vo'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: De'vID [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:58 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: -vo'
>
>
>
> SarrIS:
> > pa'vo' pagh leghlu'.
> >
> > "The room has no view."
> >
> > More literally, "One sees nothing FROM the room."
> >
> > There appears to be evidence that, at least for the single verb {legh},
> > there is one example in canon saying that the viewing occurs
> FROM {-vo} the
> > position of the viewer. There appears to be no evidence that
> viewing occurs
> > from {-vo'} the thing being viewed, regardless of which way
> light or other
> > information is flowing.
>
> It's interesting how {-vo'} is used to disambiguate in this case.
> If it had been {pa'*Daq* pagh leghlu'}, it would have meant that nothing
> was *in* the room to see. {-vo'} with {legh} seems to indicate that
> the object being seen is at a different location than the viewer.
This is my core point of interest.
> That raises an interesting point. If I was *in* the room, and I said
> {pa'Daq pagh leghlu'}, it's obvious that I mean that there's nothing
> to see in the room. But what if I am *outside* the room? If I said
> {pa'Daq pagh leghlu'}, would that mean that (from the outside) there's
> nothing in the room to see?
If I'm understanding this well, this is exactly what I'd expect it to mean.
> Going to the other example, {naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'},
I had forgotten about that one. It seems yet more evidence of the same
phenominon.
> it seems
> to mean that the tourist can't see something else (that is elsewhere)
> very well from where she was standing. If she had said {naDev
> jIleghlaHchu'be'} (since there's no {-Daq} on {naDev}) it would
> have meant that she couldn't see clearly where she was, i.e.
> she couldn't see her immediate surroundings.
Note that {naDev} is one of those nouns that NEVER has {-Daq} applied to it.
You can consider the locative to be assumed. That makes it all the more
striking when it appears as {naDevvo'}. It makes for an interesting contrast
between the suffixes {-Daq} and {-vo'}. Both are locative in nature, but
{-Daq} is sometimes implied by specific nouns (the ones we are given in TKD
are {naDev}, {pa'} and {Dat}), while there are no nouns that imply {-vo'}.
Also, {-Daq} has been explicitly described as either a direction toward or a
static location, while until this revellation, {-vo'} always implied
directional motion and never implied a static location. It seems that with
the verb {legh}, it does imply a static location that has a complementary
meaning to the static location of {-Daq} used on the same verb.
In two examples, Okrand consistently uses {-vo'} to refer to the location of
the subject for the verb {legh}. That location is static. There is no actual
motion involved. This is the first use of {-vo'} we've seen where motion was
not involved.
That's what has me so interested in these examples and why I'd like to
better understand the limits on how far we can generalize on this.
> This seems to suggest that {-vo'} marks the location of the
> subject (viewer) and {-Daq} marks the object (viewee):
Exactly.
> {HurDaq Qanqor vIlegh} "I see Krankor on the outside", i.e. "I see
> Krankor and he's outside (I'm probably outside too unless context
> indicates otherwise)"
>
> vs.
>
> {Hurvo' Qanqor vIlegh} "I see Krankor from the outside", i.e. "I see
> Krankor and I'm outside (Krankor may or may not be outside)"
I can suggest here that unless there's been some sort of transporter
accident, you will ALWAYS see Krankor from the outside. HIS outside, anyway.
> Going back to the original example you raised,
>
> SarrIS (from a while ago):
> > Qe' Hurvo' Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh. "I was outside the restaurant and
> > I saw Krankor in the restaurant."
>
> The canon seems to support this interpretation. While it's not
> a definite resolution, I think your interpretation has a very good
> case.
Thanks. I want to be clear about my stance on this. I think this makes sense
and I think that the canon we have supports it. I intend to use it this way,
though I'm definitely open to either new canon arising or old canon being
discovered which makes this approach invalid. I will also generalize this
relationship between {-Daq} and {-vo'} for verbs where it feels
appropriately similar to {legh} until I see some sort of evidence that I'm
mistaken in this generality.
I'm not saying this is definitely right. I'm just saying that this is as
right as we can get until Okrand is more explicit about this (if that ever
happens). Given this, I think it expands our expressive capability with the
language, offering a way to be more clear in our use of {legh} and similar
verbs.
> --
> De'vID
>
> --
> tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]
SarrIS