[tlhIngan Hol] Using object prefix with {-vo'}

[Aurélie Demonchaux]

>
> *juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently
> includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*
> -ing *to.*
>
> There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is
> probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
>

On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:

{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)
{pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28)
{jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)

So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.

@mayqel
Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't think it's inherently wrong, but there
might be a shade of nuance in the meaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}.

Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} would insist more on the fact that you're *specifically
*going AWAY from the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going
somewhere, which happens to be outside/ away from the house".

That's just my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would
understand it differently.


2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> juHDaq vIjaH
> I go to the house
>
> juHDaq jIjaH
> The going takes place in the vicinity of the house
>
> juHvo' jIjaH
> I am going away from the house
>
> We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always
> use a prefix indicating no-object.
>
> But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered
> wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix
> indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?
>
> *juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH*
> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something
> you're *jaH*-ing *to.*
>
> There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is
> probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
>
> On the other hand, I bet *jaghvo' vIDoH* is considered a redundant form
> of *jagh vIDoH* for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs
> of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because their
> objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any
> similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you
> could find a verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet *N**mo' vIV*
> would be considered just as redundant.
>
> --
> 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/20170809/c918e0ae/attachment-0016.htm>