[tlhIngan Hol] naDev and 'el

[nIqolay Q]

*betleHmeyraj boroQlaH, Sujoppa' 'ej Suway'pa'.*

http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt

MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
    both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in
    the river."

    I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
    say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...

WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?

MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no
    {-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm
    moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to
    someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.

WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.

MO: Right.

WM: {bav}

MO: You don't need a {-Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting.

WM: {Dech} - "surround." [[p.9]] [[-:=--]]

MO: Same thing.

WM: {ngaS} - "contain." [[-:=--]]

MO: Same thing.

WM: {vegh}

MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.

WM: {'el} - "enter." [[-:=--]]

MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the
    room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay.

    It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't
    need that.


On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:50 PM Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> 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?
>
> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
>
> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
> {naDev Da’elpa’}.
>
>
>
> If you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an adverbial, and
> thus can be the object of a verb.  If you’re asking whether {‘el} takes an
> object, it does; e.g.:
>
>
>
> *tach vI'el*, *HItlhej*
> Let's go to the pub. (RT)
>
> *Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'*
>
> that course will take *us* into the [*Great*] Barrier as well! (ST5)
>
>
>
> *neHmaH Da'el net tu'*
> Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)
>
> He's asking whether *'el* is a verb with an inherent locative sense. The
> answer is no, it is not. The object of *'el* does not have to be a
> locative. The fact that *naDev* is automatically locative doesn't change
> the lack of locative requirements of *'el.*
>
>
> *tugh naDev wI'el **Soon we will enter here.*
>
> It's awkward in English to say *enter here;* I wonder if *naDev* being
> inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon. You might prefer
> sentences like *tugh pa'vam wI'el* or *tugh Daqvam wI'el.*
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190311/736d5ec4/attachment-0016.htm>