[tlhIngan Hol] naDev and 'el

[SuStel]

On 3/11/2019 12:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I 
> think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard 
> enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what 
> the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same 
> thing. I’m just confused about the wording.
>
> Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…
>
> {‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the 
> subject and the agent, if you will.
>
> The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The 
> object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is 
> the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a 
> specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and 
> end with a path that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the 
> destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} 
> Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can 
> also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via 
> Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The 
> Washington, DC road”.
>
> You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The structure 
> or area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a 
> location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a 
> location. If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the 
> bloodstream is a location. Everything you enter is a location.
>
> In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter 
> into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The preposition is 
> unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into the meaning 
> of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be 
> strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {‘el}. It would feel 
> redundant, and then you’d need some kind of reason for having 
> expressed that redundancy.
>
> It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests 
> at least the possibility that it’s not the direct object of the verb. 
> Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I 
> entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying 
> that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter 
> the stadium… at the front gate.
>
> Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean 
> the same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it?

No, I think you're right, and I withdraw my earlier conclusion. If you 
say *pa'Daq bI'el,* that's different than saying*pa' Da'el.* The first 
says you're in the room and you enter something unspecified. The second 
says you enter location identified as the room. If this is the case, 
then you could say *pa'Daq Da'el* to refer to entering the room, and it 
would be one of those correct but redundant sentences. In every example 
Voragh posted, the object was a place being entered, an unmarked locative.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190311/60d40171/attachment.htm>