<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Sometimes, I really yearn for the days when we knew less about {-moH} with multiple objects… Life as a Klingon speaker was so much simpler in those more innocent days.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the dictionary definition of {DoHmoH} as “drive back” is acceptable, then one would think that {nuDoHmoH} would be sufficient, with perhaps {chaHvo’} tossed in at the beginning, just to be really clear about direction of travel.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We don’t have a problem with {nughojmoH} for “They teach us,” right? Why does this have to be more complicated?</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 30, 2020, at 9:31 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/30/2020 9:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cLN+5380J5LBzgN2p_Ac88sxmdyS6FVCUMcsPBjVmMBBQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Now, lets forget this example, and consider the following one: There's
a starship closing in on another ship, and that second starship uses a
repellent beam to drive the first ship back. Now, the crew of the ship
which has been driven back wants to say "they drove us back from
them".
Suppose we write:
maHvaD DoHmoHta'. The problem here will be, that although there's the
null prefix for they-them, this prefix seemingly/apparently works only
when the two "they" and "them" are two different groups.</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">Interpret it this way: <b class="">maHvaD <no object> DoHmoHta'.</b><i class="">
They drove us back.</i> Which would be easier said as <b class="">nuDoHmoHta'.</b><br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cLN+5380J5LBzgN2p_Ac88sxmdyS6FVCUMcsPBjVmMBBQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In the example above, since the subject and object of DoHmoH are the
same, we can't apply the null prefix in question.</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">I don't think there's any rule that says the subject and object
can't be the same. There is a rule that says the subject-object
combinations marked as "—" can't be expressed, but these
combinations are the ones the express 1st-person/1st-person and
2nd-person/2nd-person.</p><p class="">Mind you, I think it's likely that you're correct that the same
entity can't be both subject and object, but it's not a rule that
has been given to us.</p><p class="">So the job now is not just to decide how to translate <i class="">They
drove us back from themselves,</i> which employs a preposition
that doesn't apply in the Klingon; it is to decide how a Klingon
would say this natively. I think a Klingon would utilize context
and common sense and say <b class="">nuDoHmoHta'</b><i class=""> They drove us
back.</i> By not specifying what we're being driven from, it's
natural to assume that we're being driven from the position they
hold. You CAN add a specific location you're being driven from,
even if it's just <b class="">Daqchaj</b><i class=""> their location,</i> but you
don't have to.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cLN+5380J5LBzgN2p_Ac88sxmdyS6FVCUMcsPBjVmMBBQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Perhaps it would be tempting to write:
maHvaD DoH'eghmoHta'
they caused themselves to back away from us</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">Yuck. No thank you. This doesn't mean the same thing at all.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cLN+5380J5LBzgN2p_Ac88sxmdyS6FVCUMcsPBjVmMBBQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Since with the {-'egh} the object acts on itself, thus overcoming the
they-them prefix restriction. But again, there's something seemingly
wrong with this sentence too, which I can't identify.</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">The thing you can't identify is this: to use <b class="">-'egh</b> to say
that the object acts on itself, which is NOT an obvious reading in
any circumstance anyway, you need an object. You've already got a
subject: <i class="">they.</i> To make <b class="">-'egh</b> apply to
them-the-object, there would need to be the same <i class="">they</i> as
both subject and object anyway. You haven't avoided the problem at
all.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>