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

[SuStel]

On 7/28/2023 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol 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*?

Looks like a sloppy translation to me. "If the Fek'lhr merely does not 
find that a person enters and/or leaves Gre'thor..."

I can think of various other circuitous ways to say this "only if," none 
of which seem very good, to the point that I don't want to offer them as 
examples to emulate. Which is probably why the one Okrand used is also 
not very good.


> 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./

Weeelllllll, not exactly. *ghoS* refers to following a course. You can 
follow a course toward someplace or follow a course away from someplace. 
It doesn't change its meaning depending on what kind of noun it's used 
with; any such noun just narrows down which part of the course you're 
talking about.

*taw vIghoS*/I go along the road./

*vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS*/I go along the road toward the Great Hall./

*'angweDvo' taw vIghoS*/I go along the road from the museum./

*'angweDvo' vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS*/I go along the road from the museum to 
the Great Hall./


> 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?

This is poorly explained in boQwI'.

Start with TKD section 3.3.5.

    There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such
    as *ghoS* /approach, proceed./ The locative suffix need not be used
    on nouns which are the objects of such verbs.

    If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting
    sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong.

So there are some verbs that have inherently locative meanings. Their 
objects indicate that location. *jaH* is one of those verbs. Its meaning 
includes a location that represents the destination of going. When you 
*jaH,* you *jaH*/to/ someplace. Any object you add to *jaH* represents 
that someplace. And if you want to put a *-Daq* on that someplace, 
that's fine and optional and only a little redundant.

*jIjaH*/I go (to someplace)./

*vaS'a' vIjaH*/I go to the Great Hall/*.*

*vaS'a'Daq vIjaH*/I go to the Great Hall./

There is no difference in meaning between the last two.

Forget all that in boQwI' about the prefix indicating something. What 
the author is trying to do is show you how to distinguish between a 
locative noun indicating the destination and a locative noun indicating 
something else. It's not really about the prefix; it's about whether the 
noun is an object or not.

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? What would 
*vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH* mean? Well, *'oH* is the object of *jaH,* so it 
must be the destination. /I go to it.../ So then what is *vaS'a'Daq* 
doing? If it's not the destination, it falls back to all the other 
possible meanings of locative nouns. It probably means /I go to it in 
the Great Hall./ That is, I'm in the Great Hall, and I go to an "it" 
that is also in the Great Hall. If we specify what that "it" is, it's 
clearer: *vaS'a'Daq Hew vIjaH*/In the Great Hall, I go to the statue./ 
The action takes place IN the Great Hall TOWARD the statue.

Here's where the verb prefix comes in. If I said *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* it's 
clear from the verb prefix *jI-* that *vaS'a'Daq* cannot be the object 
of *jaH:* the prefix *jI-* means /no object./ So the Great Hall cannot 
be the destination. Therefore, it must be where the going takes place. 
/In the Great Hall, I go (someplace)./

So in the sentence *ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq**'Iw bIQtIq ghoS,* we see 
exactly the same thing. The verb is *ghoS.* The object of *ghoS* is the 
course followed. The object of *ghoS* is *'Iw bIQtIq.* So *'Iw bIQtIq 
ghoS* must mean /He goes along the River of Blood./ And *ghe'tor 
lojmIt'a'Daq* must be a locative that is not the object (because *ghoS* 
already has an object), so it must be something other than the course 
followed. Here it means /to the great gates of Gre'thor,/ a destination. 
*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS*/He goes along the River of Blood 
toward the great gates of Gre'thor./


> 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)?

It means /three lines./ I'm guessing this is another sloppy translation. 
UNLESS the English is referring to lines three across and the Klingon is 
referring to three columns, which would amount to the same thing.

I suppose it's /possible/ that *wej tlheghmey* could mean /lines of 
three:/ treating *wej* as a noun and treating the whole thing as a 
noun-noun construction, you could interpret it as having lines 
*(tlheghmey),* and those lines are the sorts of lines that are described 
with "three-ness." That seems like too much of a stretch to me, though.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20230731/55efecc7/attachment-0006.htm>