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

[De'vID]

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:45 PM luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol <
tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:

> 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*.
>

I believe so. Klingon only has one locative suffix which covers both "to"
and "in". If these meanings are both possible, they'd have to be
differentiated in some way.

2. Is it allowed to put also a *-Daq* in the object when we have another
> noun with *-Daq*?: *vengDaq tawDaq vIghoS*.
>

Yes. There is a canon example of this on SkyBox card 99: {qIb HeHDaq, 'u'
SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH} "on the
edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe"


> 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!
>

I was told specifically that those sentences (normally) only have the
meanings they are listed with in TKD, i.e., the reason that TKD does not
note those sentences as being ambiguous is because they are not ambiguous,
even though this isn't explained. (There was one more sentence, {jolpa'Daq
yIjaH}, to which the same comment applies, but it's basically redundant
with {pa'Daq yIjaH} as an example.)

Of course, Dr. Okrand always qualifies his statements with "generally",
"normally", and so on to leave some wiggle room. I imagine that it's
possible for those sentences to have the meanings you wrote above, if there
is some very strong established context, but let's say that the sentences
in TKD almost always have the meanings given in TKD. Those are the normal
interpretations of those sentences.


> *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.
>

Maybe I didn't explain this clearly, but the rule (as I understood it) is
that if you have a prefix like the null prefix, where it could mean either
it-none or it-it, and there's a noun with {-Daq} but no other noun in the
object position, then the usual way to understand the sentence is that the
prefix is being used with the it-it meaning and the {-Daq} is on the object
noun. If you have a prefix that indicates an object, then the noun with
{-Daq} is the object if there's no other noun in the object position.


> 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.


{taw vIghoS} or {tawDaq vIghoS} "I go along the road"
{taw vIchol} or {tawDaq vIchol} "I go towards the road"
{tawDaq 'oH vIghoS} "I proceed along it (presumably a course) on/to/at/in
the road" (the specific relation to the road is established by context or
something else)
{taw vIcholmeH 'oH vIghoS} "I proceed along it towards the road"

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20230802/bc550af2/attachment.htm>