[tlhIngan Hol] using chegh without an object

[SuStel]

On 2/18/2021 12:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> Many verbs have direct objects. They also can have prepositional 
> relationships to objects. Some prepositional relationships are 
> explicit, meaning that you use an actual preposition with the object. 
> Other prepositional relationships are implied in the verb.

There's no such thing as an implied prepositional relationship. The word 
/preposition/ simply means /comes before./ In English, prepositions 
express the relationship a noun has with other things (not necessarily a 
verb — /the secret of the weapon/). A noun's relationship to other 
things can also be expressed in ways that don't use prepositions. This 
doesn't make them "implied prepositional relationships." This makes them 
relationships that aren't expressed with prepositions.

I can express a relationship with a preposition: /I give the book to the 
officer./ I can express exactly the same relationship without a 
preposition: /I give the officer the book./ The relationship of the 
officer to the book or the giving or me is not prepositional, it's 
indirect object. (And I say phooey to anyone who claims the object of 
this preposition is not also an indirect object. Your grammar is 
antiquated.)


> My classic example is, “The Moon orbits the Earth." The Moon also goes 
> around the Earth. “Around” is a preposition explaining the “go” 
> relationship between the Earth and the Moon.
>
> “Orbit” is a verb that has that relationship built into its link to 
> its direct object. The Moon doesn’t go the Earth. It goes around it. 
> While you can say the Moon orbits around the Earth, this is really 
> poor English because the “Around” doesn’t tell you anything. It’s 
> redundantly redundant. The “around” is implied by the word choice “orbit”.

/The moon orbits around the Earth /is perfectly acceptable English, and 
you'll find plenty of astronomers saying /orbit around./


> So, {chegh} is kind of like “orbit”. It has a direct object with an 
> implied “to” prepositional relationship built into it. Meanwhile, the 
> English word “return” does NOT have this prepositional relationship 
> built in. I don’t return the ship. I return TO the ship. It would mean 
> something extremely different were I to say I return the ship.

If you want to get your terminology right, say that *chegh* has a 
/locative/ sense built into it. It imparts a locative meaning to its 
object. TKD explains this phenomenon to us.


> So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has 
> to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It 
> means “return to”.

Okrand glossed *chegh* with "return." When he was asked about it later, 
he posted a message that "*chegh* 'return' means 'return to a place.'" 
He has never glossed it "return (to)"; that was done by someone else 
(possibly yourself, this gloss comes from the KLI's new words list). The 
other person's gloss is correct, but Okrand is often not so precise as 
you're suggesting.

The inherent locative meaning of certain verbs is often not expressed in 
Okrand's glosses, and we have to infer or discover them. At the time we 
heard Chang say *DaH machegh,* we did not have any evidence that *chegh* 
could take the destination returned to as its object.


> Meanwhile, you could say the Moon orbits. You don’t have to say what 
> it orbits, if context makes that clear.
>
> Similarly {jIchegh} means “I return.” Technically, it does mean “I 
> return (to),” but since I’m not mentioning what the object is that I’m 
> returning to, the better translation omits the word “to”. That’s why 
> the gloss puts “to” in parentheses. It’s optional.

In general, Okrand does not put words in parentheses in his glosses 
because they're optional to the translation or to help the translator 
choose the best translation; he does so to distinguish different 
meanings of a word.


> You put the word “to” in your translation if there is an explicit 
> object. You don’t put the word “to” in your English translation if 
> there is no explicit direct object.

If appropriate. *juH vIchegh*/I return home./ *naDev chegh HoD*/The 
captain returns here./


> In the scene in question, everybody knows where the speaker is 
> returning to. He doesn’t need to mention it. He probably could have 
> said either {wIchegh} or {machegh}.

*wIchegh*/We return to it/ makes as little sense in the Klingon in this 
context as it does in the English. Sure, you can work out what he means, 
but it's not how you'd say it.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210218/bd3e7a56/attachment-0002.htm>