tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 19 13:16:50 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Locatives

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]



--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

Voragh:
> Tracy Canfield:
> >> (1)  Can it be used with nouns referring to
> people?  Some languages
> >> with locative constructions use them with nouns
> for people, with
> >> meanings along the lines of "where so-and-so is"
> or "at so-and-so's
> >> house."  Does Klingon allow this?
> >
>...
> 
> I've long wondered about this.  We finally saw an
> example in HolQeD 10.2 in Okrand's article on the finer
> points of using the "finger verbs":
> 
>   qI'empeqDaq jIqan
>   (I think that) K'mpec is old
>   (lit. "I point at K'mpec with my little
> finger").  (HQ 10.2:11)
> 
> I don't see why we shouldn't be able to say:
> 
>   wo'rIvDaq qaghom.
>   I'll meet you at Worf's.
> 
>   quwarghDaq matlhutlh DaneH'a'?
>   Do you want to get a drink at Quark's?
> 

I don't see how you get from your example sentence to an equivalent for "chez". All it establishes to me is that you can use {-Daq} with a proper name, which I thought had already been established. {wo'rIvDaq qaghom} only says to me "We gather at (around, next to?) Worf." Nothing about a person's name standing in for a place associated with that person (pedantic bonus: I believe that's called synecdoche).

In English, "Let's go to Quark." is very different from "Let's go to Quark's."  It's the possessive that establishes the synechdochic association (being understood as a contraction of "Quark's place"), not the locative.

-- ter'eS






Back to archive top level