tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 14 17:42:36 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'

QeS 'utlh (

ghItlhpu' SuStel, ja':
>nuq 'oH pu'jIn'e'?

qaStaHvIS DISvam qep'a', cha' mu' chu' nob Okrand tetlhvamDaq net
ja'. {pu'jIn} 'oH wa''e': "map" 'oS. (latlh'e': {qolqoS} "core, essential
part of something, essence".)

>Irrelevant. The presence of a type 5 suffix doesn't mean the noun
>can't be a subject or object. We've never seen a subject with {-Daq},
>{-vo'}, or {-vaD} on it, but there's no rule that prohibits it either.

Actually, we have seen such a subject, precisely once:

meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH
only a fool fights in a burning house (TKW p.111)

Although {qach} bears the suffix {-Daq} and is indeed serving as a
locative for the main clause, in the subordinate clause it can't be serving
as anything but the subject. It doesn't have much relevance to {naDev},
but it's at least proof that type 5 suffixes can surface on nouns that
aren't acting only as simple locatives.

(Of course, how this would be realised for *objects* serving as headers
in the main clause is mighty messy, and whether the {-Daq} is attached
not to {qach}, but to the whole phrase {meQtaHbogh qach}, is up for
debate. But that's another issue entirely, and one not for this thread.)

>And I daresay that few people have trouble accepting the idea of
>putting {naDev} in the subject position if context calls for it.

{lam naDev Hemey} "the streets of this region are dirty". Nope, I have
no problem with it, although obviously {naDev lam Hemey} works just
as well for that meaning ("hereabouts, the streets are dirty").

SuStel jangpu' Doq, ja':
>Anyway, if {naDev} already has a null variation on {-Daq}, then the
>Type 5 suffix is already full, so he couldn't put {-'e'} on it.

It's true that {naDev} contains a concept of location, and alone is usually
interpreted as having locative meaning, but there's no kind of
suppressed grammatical {-Daq} there. Okrand translates {naDev},
{pa'} and {Dat} as "area around here", "area over there", and "all
places" (TKD p.27), and all he says is that they're never followed by the
locative suffix. That doesn't mean that the idea of an "inherent {-Daq}"
needs to be taken literally. I found three examples of {naDevvo'} in
canon, one of which is even in TKD, which all explicitly disprove the idea
that {naDev} somehow already carries a Type 5 suffix:

naDevvo' yIghoS
Go away! (TKD p.172)

naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
I can't see well from here (CK)

naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (PK)

When acting as headers, {naDev}, {pa'} and {Dat} can probably be
viewed as "location stamps" in much the same way as many nouns
function as "time stamps", and as such the {-Daq} is redundant. But
even words traditionally used as time stamps can appear in non-
header positions: {cha'vatlh ben HIq} "two-century-old wine" (PK),
and the fact that the three location nouns are explicitly referred to as
nouns means they should be able to appear anywhere that more
concrete nouns can. Otherwise, they'd really be adverbs, not nouns.

QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'
(Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute)

not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh

Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at

Back to archive top level