[tlhIngan Hol] the {nargh} the other {nargh} and the {-vo'}

[André Müller]

Another idea, unrelated to the syntactic workings of {nargh}: maybe they're
in fact not 2 distinct homophonic verbs, but one verb with 2 quite
different translations in English. Escaping and appearing might just be
different viewpoints of the same action, just like "come" and "go" are both
{ghoS} or {jaH} and context (often {-vo'} decides how to interpret it.
Klingon isn't the only language which does that. One of the languages of
Burma that I am working on (Jinghpaw, pronounced exactly like {jIngpo'} in
Klingon by the way!) also only has one word "sa" to mean both 'come' and
'go'.

So perhaps {nargh} describes the concept of suddenly changing its state of
presence. One can, sort of, appear to a place, or away from a place. Or a
thing might suddenly escape from nowhere into sight, and then suddenly
escape out of your sight again.

- André

2016-11-21 21:02 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> On 11/21/2016 1:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> SuStel:
>
> > You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped> from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor.
>
> hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me..
>
> bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH
> the "going" takes place at the shore
>
> bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH
> I am going to the shore
>
> bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH
> I am going to the shore
> (same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong)
>
> if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated
> as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ?
>
>
> I don't think *nargh* is a verb of movement. But even if it were, notice
> the difference between *-Daq* and *-vo'*:
>
> *-Daq* has two senses: *going** to* a place or *being** at* a place.
> *-vo'* has only one sense: *going from* a place. It doesn't seem to have
> a corresponding meaning of *being away from* a place.
>
> When you say *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* the special rules of verbs of motion mean
> you're forced to pick just one of the usual *-Daq* meanings: *being at* a
> place. This makes it mean something like, *at the Great Hall, I go.* But
> *jaH* can also take an object that represents the destination. *vaS'a'
> vIjaH* *I go to the Great Hall.* The* to* meaning is inherent to the
> verb. So adding *-Daq* to that noun doesn't change the inherent *to* of
> the verb, forcing you into the meaning of *to *a place.
>
> The reason you can add *-Daq* to the object of such words, even though
> that doesn't seem to happen with other words, is that the *to* is already
> built in. You're just making explicit what comes inherently with the verb.
>
> But *-vo'* does not seem to be inherent in verbs of motion, at least not
> as Okrand presented them. When he was describing the verb *leng,* he gave
> us *yuQ vIlegh* and *yuQDaq vIlegh* *I travel to the planet,** yuQvo'
> jIleng** I roam away from the planet,* and *yuQDaq jIleng** I roam
> around/about the planet.* He conspicuously doesn't give us **yuQvo'
> vIleng.* His example *yuQvo' jIleng* apparently doesn't mean *I roam in a
> place away from the planet.*
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161122/238a6312/attachment-0017.htm>