tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 07 12:44:57 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Quick ghoS question

Steven Boozer (sboozer@uchicago.edu)



qurgh:
>I know this is has been asked and answered many times before, but I need
>to get it straight in my head and the archives are unsearchable right now.
>Is -Daq on a direct object of a "verb of motion" wrong or just redundant?

TKD28:  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: 
  {Duj ghoStaH}    It is approaching the ship.
  {yuQ wIghoStaH}  We are proceeding toward the planet. 
If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong: 
  {DujDaq ghoStaH} It is approaching toward the ship.

>What are all the "verbs of motion"?  ghoS, jaH, paw, vIH... ?

I don't think Okrand has ever given us a complete list, but here's what I have in my notes:


****************************************************************
[Interview in HolQeD 7.4 (Dec. 1998)]:

WM: You've already mentioned about some special relationships between
    verbs and direct objects in Klingon that would not necessarily be
    typical to English, for example {ghoS}...

MO: {ghoS} is a very interesting verb.

WM: Oh boy. Is it. My personal sense of {ghoS}, just trying to figure out
    what in the world all those different definition segments are
    pointing towards, is that {ghoS} would be to follow a path associated
    with the direct object.

MO: Yes. That's good. I've never heard it phrased that way, but that's
    good.

WM: So, typically, the most common thing you'd associate with a path is
    its destination, but it doesn't have to be. It could be its source.
    Now, the usage that I've seen most commonly is that we'll use just
    the noun if it is the destination, but we'll use {-vo'} on the noun
    when we are moving away from it. Would that be typical Klingon
    usage?

MO: Yes. The short answer is yes. [Trademark mysterious smile.]

WM: You said that you can't always judge by the definitions as given,
    that you can't always tell as to whether something can be transitive
    or not. There are certain things that are very similar to {ghoS} that
    some of us are very tempted to use in a similar way. Things like
    {bav} - "orbit."

MO: Yes. I would do that.

WM: Then there are some that some people are tempted to, and others
    really don't like, like {jaH} - "go."

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}.
       (...)

WM: {'el} - "enter."

MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered
    into the room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but
    that's okay. It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand
    you," but you don't need that.

WM: In the Dictionary, you said that {ghoS} could be used either
    with or without {-Daq} but it would be somewhat marked with
    the {-Daq}. Is this true for {jaH} as well?

MO: Less marked? Yes, the same, with the {vI-}, not with the
    {jI-}.

WM: {leng} - "roam, travel."

MO: {leng} works like {jaH}. These are all okay:

        {yuQ vIleng or yuQDaq vIleng}
         I travel to the planet

        {yuQvo' jIleng}
         I roam away from the planet

        {yuQDaq jIleng}
         I roam (around/about) on the planet

    This is not okay:  {yuQ jIleng}

WM: {paw} - "arrive."

MO: Again, just like {jaH}, it depends. {Duj vIpaw} means "I
    arrive at the ship;"  {DujDaq jIpaw} means "I arrive on the
    ship," that is, I arrive via the ship or something like that.
    And it would probably be okay to say {DujDaq vIpaw} for "I
    arrive at the ship."  But {Duj jIpaw} strikes me as odd.


****************************************************************
From: Marc Okrand <mokrand@erols.com>
Newsgroups: startrek.klingon
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 
Subject: Re: tlhIngan

Will Martin wrote:
>And since I don't have the interview with me, was chegh "return" one of
>those verbs that acts like ghoS and jaH in terms of having the locative
>suffix optional on the direct object, or is it more like Hop and Sum
>with assumptions made about relating the speaker with the place returned
>to?

{chegh} "return" seems to work like this:

	{lupDujHomDaq jIchegh}
	"I return on the shuttle."

	{lupDujHom vIchegh       	}
	"I return to the shuttle."

	{lupDujHomDaq may'Duj vIchegh}
	"I return to the battle cruiser on the shuttle"

	{tera'vo' Qo'noS vIchegh}
	"I return to Kronos from Earth"

If the place being returned to is mentioned (as in the final three sentences), the verb takes a pronominal prefix that indicates the object ({vI-} in the examples).

****************************************************************

>So do these two sentences mean the same thing (I go, in a ship, to my home)
>and which one is preferred (if there is a preference)?
>
>  DujDaq juHwIj vIghoS
>  DujDaq juHwIjDaq vIghoS

If I read Okrand correctly, you'd use {jI-} on the 2nd example:

  DujDaq juHwIjDaq jIghoS




--
Voragh                          
Canon Master of the Klingons








Back to archive top level