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

[Will Martin]

I’m not sure you ever got an answer to question 1. Just in case you didn’t…

The definitions we’ve been given tell us that {neH} used as an adverb and not as the verb for “want”, follows what it modifies, and it can follow a noun or a verb. It describes exclusivity for the noun, but it trivializes the verb. You didn’t include the English translation of

> ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH
> 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh
> ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam
> 
> (paq'yav 11, 10-12)


Given the definition of {neH} as an adverb, I’d have translated it as “If the veqlargh merely doesn’t discover that a person enters and/or leaves ghe’tor, then this person can return from ghe’tor.”

If the given English translation says “only if”, then either this is new evidence of a broader meaning of {neH} to include “only” as in “exclusively” in addition to meaning “trivially” for verbs, or in writing the canon example, someone looked up {neH} and saw “only” and mindlessly chose to use it this way. He goofed, and we’re stuck with it.

But since canon is always right, you are free to use it this way, and some people might argue with you.

Or, if you wanted to dodge the whole issue, just use logic to recast it in a less controversial wording.

… ‘e’ tu’chugh veqlargh ghe’torvo’ cheghlaHbe’ nuvvam.

That means exactly the same thing, while avoiding a controversial use of {neH} as an adverb applied to a verb, and it’s stunningly easy to do.

But hey, maybe you LIKE conflict. Nobody will stop you from using {x-chugh neH} to mean “only if”. Your spell checker may give you some grief, but when you write in Klingon, you fight THAT all the time.

As for all things {-Daq} it might help to think of a {veng} as a place with buildings and people, but {vengDaq} doesn’t have any buildings or people, because it is merely the location of the city. A {bIQtIq} has water. {bIQtIqDaq} has no water. It’s just the location of the water.

If you have a verb that uses a location as its object, then {veng jaH} is going toward the city, regardless of whether it has people and buildings in it. You are going to the place. You are also going to the location of the place. The latter is somewhat redundant and even odd, but it’s not wrong. If you bomb a city, you bomb the people and the buildings, not just the location.

There are so many tools for expressing things in Klingon. If your goal is to use it like a language, your focus is on having something to express and expressing it, rather than on taking one Klingon grammatical construction and using it every way it could possibly be used. Finding the limits of the grammar is not the same thing as learning how to use the language well.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org> wrote:
> 
> 1.
> 
> ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH
> 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh
> ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam
> 
> (paq'yav 11, 10-12)
> 
> Is it correct to use *-chugh neH* with the meaning *only if*? Obviously, it isn't the same as the normal meaning of *neH* with verbs (*just / merely*). And if it isn't correct, how can we render the meaning *only if*?
>  
> 2.
> 
> ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq
> 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS
> naDevvo' chegh pagh
>  
> (paq'raD Prologue, 22-24)
>  
> In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./
> 
> And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./
> 
> The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq*), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something?
> 
> 3.
> 
> ghe’tor lojmIt
> lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’
> chen wej tlheghmey
> 
> (paq'raD 1, 25-27)
> 
> Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)?
> 
> Thank you for your help!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230802/b3319199/attachment.htm>