tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 07 08:41:49 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIH

Steven Boozer (

> >> *DallaSDaq jIDabtaHbe'.
> >> *IndianapolisDaq jIDabtaH.

>DajatlhnIS:  <<DALLAS vIDabtaHbe'. INDIANAPOLIS vIDab.>>
><<Dab>> wot Dalo'taHvIS, DaqDaq <<-Daq>> moHaq yIlanQo'.

>chaq DuH tu'lu'taH:

Will Martin interviewed MO in HolQeD (Dec. 1998) on verbs of motion and 

  MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
      both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go
      in the river". I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the
      river. You can also say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...
  WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?
  MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no
      {-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm
      moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace.
      You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.

The same idea, stated differently:

   There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as
   {ghoS} "approach, proceed". The locative suffix [-Daq] need not be used
   on nouns which are the objects of such verbs... If the locative suffix
   is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant,
   but not out-and-out wrong. (TKD 28)

>>rap'a' {Dab}? pab {DallasDaq vIDab} 'e' vIHar jIH. pagh {-Daq} lo'laH'a'
>>vay' vIHtaHghach luDelbogh wot lulo'lu'taHvIS neH?
>>'ach reH 'utba'taH {vI-}. tlhIngan Hol'e' vangtaHghach 'oS {Dab}.

>>But in Klingon, {jaH} and {ghoS} (both conventionally translated as "go")
>>*may* (but do not always) imply "to", which is what happens in their
>>transitive usage: {bIQtIq vIghoS} "I go to the river". {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS} is
>>equally grammatical according to the interview I cited.
>> >DaH tlhIngan mu' <<Dab>> yIqel. tlhIngan mu' <<Dab>> rur DIvI' Hol  mu'mey
>> ><<reside in/at>>. tlhIngan mojaq <<-Daq>> rur DIvI' Hol mu'mey  <<in/at>>.

>Marc Okrand on startrek.klingon (July 1999):
>      Actually, the most common form of the question "Where do you live?"
>    is not a question at all, but a command such as: {Daq DaDabbogh yIngu'}
>    "Identify the place where you live" [...] Perhaps a translation such as
>    "Identify the place that you live at" or "Identify the place that you
>    inhabit" is more revealing. Answers are likely to be brief and to the
>    point: {Daqvam} "this place", {pa'} "there", {naDev} "here", {qachvetlh}
>    "that building", {Qo'noS} "Kronos". It is possible, however, to respond
>    with a full sentence: {Daqvam vIDab} "I live at this place", {pa' vIDab}
>    "I live there", {naDev vIDab} "I live here", {qachvetlh vIDab} "I live
>    in/at that building", {Qo'noS vIDab} "I live on Kronos".
>      Of the three suggested ways to ask "Where do you live?" the first is the
>    most acceptable: {nuq DaDab} "What do you inhabit? What do you dwell at?"
>    [...] The English translations of nuq {DaDab} are very awkward (from an
>    English point of view) and don't get across the sense of the Klingon all
>    that well. The less literal "Where do you live?" is what is really being
>    asked. In Klingon, when one lives in a place or dwells in a place, he or
>    she is thought of as "occupying" or "inhabiting" that place; not doing
>    something at that location, but doing something to it (occupying it).

>>Anyway, I was intending merely to say that {Dab} *might* be able to take a
>>noun marked with {-Daq} as its object, not that it necessarily must. I was
>>speculating based upon the behaviour of other location-marking verbs we
>>have, such as {jaH}, {leng}, {ghoS}, {'el} and {paw}. I had thought that
>>Voragh's {yIlanQo'} "do not add it" was a little strong. However, Voragh has
>>reminded me of Okrand's statement that Klingon considers {Dab} to be an
>>action verb. This appears to make my example of {vengDaq vIDab} incorrect.

That's right.  {Dab} is not a verb of motion or, as Okrand put it in TKD, 
"verbs whose meanings include locative notions".  If QeS was trying to 

   DALLASDaq vIDab
   I live *in* Dallas (downtown or in the city proper, not in the suburbs)

   I live in Dallas (not Chicago)

we have the area nouns {qoD} "inside, interior", {Hur} "outside" and 
{retlh} "area beside, next to, beside" available:

   DALLAS qoD vIDab

   DALLAS Hur vIDab

   DALLAS retlh vIDab

And WRT other "locative notions" and cities, Okrand gave these examples in 
his discussion of the cardinal direction nouns (i.e. {chan}, {'ev} and 
{tIng} on startrek.klingon 11/21/1999:

   veng chanDaq jIwam
   I hunt east of the city

   chan vengDaq jIwam
   I hunt in the city in the east (the city toward the east, the eastern city)

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level