<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>betleHmeyraj boroQlaH, Sujoppa' 'ej Suway'pa'.</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt">http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><pre>MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in
the river."
I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...
WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no
{-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm
moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to
someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.
WM: {bav}
MO: You don't need a {-Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting.
WM: {Dech} - "surround." [[p.9]] [[-:=--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {ngaS} - "contain." [[-:=--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {vegh}
MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.
WM: {'el} - "enter." [[-:=--]]
MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the
room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay.
It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't
need that.</pre></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:50 PM Will Martin <<a href="mailto:willmartin2@mac.com">willmartin2@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div>I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I’m just confused about the wording.</div><div><br></div><div>Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…</div><div><br></div><div>{‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the subject and the agent, if you will.</div><div><br></div><div>The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and end with a path that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The Washington, DC road”.</div><div><br></div><div>You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The structure or area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a location. If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is a location. Everything you enter is a location.</div><div><br></div><div>In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The preposition is unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into the meaning of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {‘el}. It would feel redundant, and then you’d need some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy.</div><div><br></div><div>It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that it’s not the direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium… at the front gate.</div><div><br></div><div>Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean the same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it?</div><br><div>
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br><br>rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><br></div><br class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">{naDev
Da’elpa’}.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">If
you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an
adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb. If you’re
asking whether {‘el} takes an object, it does; e.g.:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b>tach vI'el</b>,
<b>HItlhej</b>
<br>
Let's go to the pub. (RT)<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'</b>
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">that course will take <i>us</i> into the [<i>Great</i>]
Barrier as well! (ST5)<b><u></u><u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u></u> <u></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="color:rgb(192,0,0)">neHmaH Da'el net tu'</span></b>
<br>
Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)</p>
</blockquote><p>He's asking whether <b>'el</b> is a verb with an inherent
locative sense. The answer is no, it is not. The object of <b>'el</b>
does not have to be a locative. The fact that <b>naDev</b> is
automatically locative doesn't change the lack of locative
requirements of <b>'el.</b></p><p><b>tugh naDev wI'el<br>
</b><i>Soon we will enter here.</i></p><p>It's awkward in English to say <i>enter here;</i> I wonder if <b>naDev</b>
being inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon.
You might prefer sentences like <b>tugh pa'vam wI'el</b> or <b>tugh
Daqvam wI'el.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target="_blank">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target="_blank">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>