tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 01 08:11:24 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD chu' Hevlu''a'?
Voragh:
> > Chicago vengDaq vIDab 'ej vaghHu' vIHev.
ngabwI':
>{Chicago vengDaq}... Does {Dab} take {-Daq}? (Honestly asking, I've been
>saying {Tampa vIDab} for a while. If I'm wrong, I want to know.)
>
>And if it doesn't take {-Daq}, I get "I live in the suburbs of Chicago" out
>of it. If this is what you're going for, excellent job! To evoke a concept
>like this, as succinctly as you have, is quite impressive.
I'll take the complement but this was, in fact, a mistake. I was trying to
avoid *{Chicago-Daq vIDab} when I got the bright idea of using {veng} as a
tag, completely forgetting that I didn't need to use {-Daq} at all!
Actually, I live Hyde Park which is considered part of the city proper and
not strictly speaking a suburb. Hmm... I wonder how the "area nouns" work
with {Dab}:
?Chicago qoD vIDab
?Chicago qoDDaq vIDab
?Chicago qoDDaq jIDab
"I live in(side) Chicago" (i.e. in the city proper, not on the outskirts)
?Chicago botlh vIDab
?Chicago botlhDaq vIDab
?Chicago botlhDaq jIDab
"I live in the center of Chicago" (i.e. downtown ["The Loop" as we say here])
?Chicago retlh vIDab
?Chicago retlhDaq vIDab
?Chicago retlhDaq jIDab
"I live beside (next to) Chicago" (i.e. just outside in the suburbs)
?Chicago Hur vIDab
?Chicago HurDaq vIDab
?Chicago HurDaq jIDab
"I live outside Chicago" (i.e. one of the suburbs)
The first versions without {-Daq} are probably right.
QeS lagh:
>Short version: {Tampa vIDab} is grammatical, and is roughly equivalent to
>{TampaDaq vIDab}, both meaning "I live in Tampa".
>
>Long version: We know from a startrek.klingon posting by MO (19 July 1999)
>that {Dab} can definitely be used without {-Daq}: see the last part of
>http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19.txt.
That seems to be the default: the direct object of {Dab} is the place. All
of Okrand's examples are without {-Daq} in his st.k posting, but
interestingly he doesn't say that using {-Daq} is out and out wrong. *If*
allowed, using {-Daq} is a matter of accepted style, not grammar.
>But *with* {-Daq}? My personal opinion on this is that {Dab} is one of the
>verbs of location that MO talks about in the interview in HolQeD 7:4, which
>explicitly include {ghoS}, {leng}, {'el}, {paw} and {jaH}; all of these can
>accept {-Daq} and a {vI-} prefix simultaneously. Of course, all the verbs
>that he says are optional vis-a-vis {-Daq} are verbs of motion *to* a
>location, where {Dab} is just a verb of location. I'm not sure whether that
>makes a difference or not; the article is pretty vague on that.
>
>But on the basis of this interview, I'd say that they're roughly equivalent
>(and both grammatical), with {Tampa vIDab} being unmarked and {TampaDaq
>vIDab} marked. To quote MO from HolQeD 7:4: "...if you did say {pa'Daq
>vI'el} "I entered into the room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but
>that's okay."
I agree with QeS: Using {-Daq} with {Dab} probably sounds awkward and
redundant - much like that awful-sounding phrase you sometimes hear airline
personnel say: "exit *from* the aircraft".
There's no rule forbidding redundancy and awkwardness!
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons