[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:

*> jIHDaq ve'**> he travels on me*
> He's riding on my back, or something like that. The
> destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the
> object of *ve'*because the verb prefix agrees
> with *he/she/it/they/none.*

I fail to see how the {jIHDaq ve'} produces the "he travels on me".

According to the canon (or so I think) example of {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} for "I
go in the river/I am moving along the river" (HQ 7.4, Dec 1998), whenever
we have the {-Daq} with a verb of movement, which verb of movement has a
verb prefix indicating no object, then the {-Daq} indicates the location
where the going takes place.

So, as I understand the example of {jIHDaq ve'} the meaning isn't "he
travels (with a purpose) on me"; it is rather "he is traveling with a
purpose in the vicinity of me".

qunnoq






On 5 Jul 2017 8:52 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 7/5/2017 1:26 PM, David Holt wrote:
>
> ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:
>
> >> DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
>
>
> >If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and
> the sentence refers to a single person, then..
>
> >shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a'
> Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
>
>
> Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not
> referring to a single person.  To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq
> bove'meH bonablaH}.  The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a
> point of contention or argument.
>
> It's not that it's optional; it's that it's redundant. Let me use an
> example that makes it clear what is an object and what isn't (assuming
> *ve'* works like *jaH*).
>
>
> *jIH muve' *
> *he travels to me *I am his destination. *jIH* is the object of *ve'.*
>
>
> *jIHDaq ve' *
> *he travels on me *He's riding on my back, or something like that. The
> destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of
> *ve'* because the verb prefix agrees with *he/she/it/they/none.*
>
>
> *jIHDaq muve' *
> *he travels to at-me; he travels to me-as-location *This is grammatical;
> you're just marking *me* explicitly as a location. The verb prefix agrees
> with *jIHDaq* and shows that that's its object. But since *ve'* includes
> the notion that its object is a location, this is redundant. I have tried
> to reproduce its effect in the English translation above. The Klingon is
> more formally grammatically correct than the English.
>
> Unfortunately, the line from the movie is simply *jIve'.* We don't
> actually know whether it is a "verb of motion" or not. Since it is compared
> to *leng,* which is a verb of motion, my money is on *ve'* being one too.
>
> --
> 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/20170705/a343d0a1/attachment-0016.htm>