[tlhIngan Hol] Three questions about the *paq'batlh*

[Will Martin]

{ghoS} is a special word.

It means that you are following a path which is identified by the object of {ghoS}. If I’m traveling along Richmond Road, I {ghoS} Richmond road. It’s called Richmond Road because people around here commonly use it to go to Richmond, but if I’m going to a location half way between here and Richmond, I’m still {ghoS}ing Richmond Road. Also, when I return home from Richmond, I {ghoS} Richmond Road. It doesn’t matter which direction I’m traveling on Richmond Road. Either way, I {ghoS} Richmond Road.

This is why MOST OF THE TIME MOST PEOPLE will NOT put {-Daq} on Richmond to say that they are {ghoS}ing Richmond Road. It’s not outright wrong to use {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS}, but it’s similar to putting a plural suffix on a noun with a number in front of it that makes it obvious that the noun is plural. It’s not wrong. It’s very uncommon.

“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

The most common use of nouns with {-Daq} is to tell you where the action of the verb is happening. It’s context for the sentence. {ghoS} is an action that also has a context independent of its object. You can be in a car on Richmond Road, or you can be in Louisa on Richmond Road. {ghoS} can happen in the car, and it can happen in Louisa, but it’s direct object tells you that it’s happening along Richmond Road.

{-vo’} is similar to {-Daq} in terms of providing context, except that it gives you a direction, not a location. Many people misunderstand {-vo’} and {-Daq} and think they are both directions; one is from and the other is towards, but these suffixes are not really opposites because {-Daq} is not a direction. It’s a location. {-vo’} is a direction, not a location.

We like to think in opposites. Someone says, “Hot”, you think “Cold”. Someone says “North”, you think “South” before you think “East” or “West”. So, you see {-vo’} and you reevaluate {-Daq} and think these are opposites. They are not.

{vengDaq taw vIghoS} means “I’m traveling along a road in the city.” It does not mean “I’m traveling along a road toward the city.” “Toward the city” is a direction, not a location. If you want to indicate that you are going toward the city, you are using the wrong verb. {taw vIghoS. veng vIjaH}. You can want to accomplish this specific meaning with one verb, but, hey, I want an airplane. Specifically, I want a Shark. I also want a pilot’s licence, my own airport and a hangar.

I can’t get what I want, and neither can you.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Aug 1, 2023, at 4:44 PM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much, SuStel, De'vID and charghwI' for your answers!
> 
> SuStel:
> 
>> taw vIghoS I go along the road.
> 
>> vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS I go along the road toward the Great Hall.
> 
> De'vID:
> 
>>> Let me illustrate the ambiguity. vaS'a'Daq vIjaH. This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that vaS'a'Daq is the object, or does it mean vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH, where the pronoun had been elided?
> 
>> I had a chat with Dr. Okrand about this some years ago. This isn't actually ambiguous, because when the prefix can indicate an object, and there's a noun marked with {-Daq}, then (usually, generally, etc. - the usual qualifications) it is the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. This is actually implied by the examples in TKD but not explained clearly. 
> 
>> {DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship."
>> {pa'Daq yIjaH} "Go to the room!"
>  
>> These cannot mean "It is approaching something on the ship" and "Go to it in the room!" If you wanted to say those sentences, you'd have to explicitly add an {'oH} or something.
> 
> I have some more questions about this:
> 
> 1. *vengDaq taw vIghoS* would be however (without further context) ambiguous, right? It could mean: *I go along the road toward the city* or *I go along the road in the city*.
> 
> 2. Is it allowed to put also a *-Daq* in the object when we have another noun with *-Daq*?: *vengDaq tawDaq vIghoS*.
> 
> 3. De'vID says that when the prefix *can* indicate an object, and we have a noun with *-Daq*, this noun is (usually) the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. Couldn't these both examples have the following meanings too?:
> 
> *DujDaq ghoStaH* - It is approaching on the ship.
> *pa'Daq yIjaH* - Go in the room!
> 
> *DujDaq vIghoStaH* would be clear (*I'm approaching toward the ship*), because *vI-* indicate an object, but in the examples above the prefixes *could* also indicate no object.
> 
> 4. How can I distinguish between *I go along the road* and *I approach toward the road*? Following SuStel's explanation, and supposing I've understood it right, I would say *taw vIghoS* could only mean *I go along the road*, *tawDaq vIghoS* would have two meanings: *I go along the road* with a redundant *-Daq* or *I go along (something) toward the road* with an elided pronoun. But with De'vID's explanation I'm not sure any more.
> 
> charghwI':
> 
>> We tend to question whether these borderline poetry, revealed ancient Klingon writings mean exactly what the English means, and we tend to forget that we might not accurately understand what the English means.
> 
> I'm often not very sure if I understand what the English means :-)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230801/1efbcff9/attachment.htm>