[tlhIngan Hol] {mej} with and without {-vo'}

[Alan Anderson]

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:07 AM Iikka Hauhio <fergusq at protonmail.com>
wrote:

>
> When *ghoS* is used to mean "go away from", it has *-vo'*:
>
>
> *chaH neH wovmoHlu'be'*
>
> *chaH 'emvo' ghoS*
> *SuvwI'pu' mangghom **yoH*
>
>
> *The sun shone not on them only,*
>
> *Behind them came*
>
> *An army of brave warriors.*
>
> (paq'batlh)
>
> I don't see a "go away from" meaning there. I see a "go/proceed" and I see
a context-setting "from behind them", but they don't combine for me the way
you seem to be treating it. My interpretation of this text is that *ghoS *has
its typical meaning of "move along a path", with an implied destination
here of *chaH*. Notice the English version of the passage uses the word
"came", not "went away from". The phrase *chaH 'emvo'* does indicate the
direction from which the army approached, but they *came* from there. They
didn't *go away from* there. (Okay, perhaps they literally did, but that's
not the point of the sentence.)


> Based on the evidence we have I don't think we can say that a nominative
> object could have an ablative meaning. I think the definition just means
> that in some contexts (ie. when *-vo'* is used), the verb can be
> translated with "go away from".
>

We certainly cannot conclude from what we know that an object with *-vo'*
*must* be allowed by Klingon grammar. But if you're going to translate *X-vo'
ghoS* as *go away from X* with the "from" embedded in the verb instead of
being part of the location, you're already treating *X* as the verb's
object even as it bears the *-vo'* suffix*.*

-- ghunchu'wI'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220526/bd7b466e/attachment-0001.htm>