<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="">Just to be clear:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I never put anything in the New Words List without citing the source. That’s the whole point of the list — to be an index to words that are listed in official sources. The sources are scattered, but the New Words List points to all of them from one place. The New Words List is never the official source of any Klingon word.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just checked my own database, which reflects the New Words List as it existed when I maintained it. It lists {chegh} as “return”, not “return (to)” with the source being TKD. Unless there’s a difference between the E->K / K->E sides of TKD or some later source appends or changes the definition, TKD words were not placed in the New Words List. I did list words that exist in both TKD and the Addendum, since people looking up a word in TKD might think they are done and not double check the Addendum, never learning about the expanded definition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">TKD is full of OLD words, not NEW words, hence the title New Words List. I’m the guy who came up with that title, and I did it for a reason.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This suggests that I’m not the person who put {chegh} in the New Words List.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, looking at the New Words List, the source is listed as NEWS. The “Works cited” list at the bottom of the page doesn’t have a listing for NEWS, so I can’t tell you who put this word on the list or what work it cites. I’m as clueless as you on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As for “prepositional relationships”, I’m not a professional linguist. I don’t even play one on TV. I’m an amateur enthusiast. I use the best terms I know. You are probably right. I should be talking about locatives.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I was simply trying to explain that nouns have a lot of different roles in a sentence. While there’s an obvious difference between a verb’s direct object and the object of a preposition in terms of grammar, there is no global rule that dictates whether a specific verb can use a specific noun as its direct object, or if that noun would require a preposition (in English) or a Type 5 noun suffix (in Klingon).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The Moon goes around the Earth.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The Moon orbits the Earth.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The Moon orbits around the Earth.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">These all mean exactly the same thing. There is not so much as a shade of meaning difference among them.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The verb “go” requires the preposition. Omitting it completely changes the meaning of the sentence.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The verb “orbit” doesn’t require the preposition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{chegh} is apparently something akin to the English “orbit”, while its gloss “return” is not.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Most verbs don’t have a location as the direct object. {chegh} does. The English word “return” is a lot more complicated.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In particular, without canon to clarify, the gloss is insufficient to differentiate between “I return to the ship” and “I return a book to the library”. More accurately, the former could also be stated as “I return myself to the ship” and the latter could be stated as “I cause the book to return to the library.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That’s a common feature of many verbs in English. It exists in Klingon, but so far as we know, it’s more common to be like {vIH} where the subject is always the object in motion, unless we add the suffix {-moH}, where we split the roles of the noun causing the motion and the noun in motion. Without {-moH}, they are one and the same.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But we have other Klingon verbs where the one causing the motion is always the subject of the verb and we have to use {-‘egh} to indicate that the one causing the action of the verb is also the one performing the action.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And the gloss doesn’t always indicate which of these three cases are true:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. The one performing the action is subject and we use {-moH} to refer to the one causing the action to occur.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. The one causing the action is subject and we use {-‘egh} to refer to the one performing the action to be the same one who is causing it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3. We don’t know if it’s case 1 or 2 or if either one is fine. Let context decide.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Myself, being foolish enough to wish that Klingon could be a language in which things can be said more clearly than in English, I’ve always favored definitions that made it clear which of the three cases apply to each verb, but it’s a fool’s goal. I’d love for case 3 to be forbidden, but if wishes were fishes…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s not my language. I just get to use it. Happiness is easier to achieve if I’m content with just that.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><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 Feb 18, 2021, at 1:44 PM, 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 2/18/2021 12:41 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">Many verbs
have direct objects. They also can have prepositional
relationships to objects. Some prepositional relationships are
explicit, meaning that you use an actual preposition with the
object. Other prepositional relationships are implied in the verb.</blockquote><p class="">There's no such thing as an implied prepositional relationship.
The word <i class="">preposition</i> simply means <i class="">comes before.</i> In
English, prepositions express the relationship a noun has with
other things (not necessarily a verb — <i class="">the secret of the
weapon</i>). A noun's relationship to other things can also be
expressed in ways that don't use prepositions. This doesn't make
them "implied prepositional relationships." This makes them
relationships that aren't expressed with prepositions.</p><p class="">I can express a relationship with a preposition: <i class="">I give the
book to the officer.</i> I can express exactly the same
relationship without a preposition: <i class="">I give the officer the
book.</i> The relationship of the officer to the book or the
giving or me is not prepositional, it's indirect object. (And I
say phooey to anyone who claims the object of this preposition is
not also an indirect object. Your grammar is antiquated.)<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">My classic example is, “The Moon orbits the Earth."
The Moon also goes around the Earth. “Around” is a preposition
explaining the “go” relationship between the Earth and the
Moon. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">“Orbit” is a verb that has that relationship built
into its link to its direct object. The Moon doesn’t go the
Earth. It goes around it. While you can say the Moon orbits
around the Earth, this is really poor English because the
“Around” doesn’t tell you anything. It’s redundantly redundant.
The “around” is implied by the word choice “orbit”.</div>
</blockquote><p class=""><i class="">The moon orbits around the Earth </i>is perfectly acceptable
English, and you'll find plenty of astronomers saying <i class="">orbit
around.</i><br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">So, {chegh} is kind of like “orbit”. It has a direct
object with an implied “to” prepositional relationship built
into it. Meanwhile, the English word “return” does NOT have this
prepositional relationship built in. I don’t return the ship. I
return TO the ship. It would mean something extremely different
were I to say I return the ship.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">If you want to get your terminology right, say that <b class="">chegh</b>
has a <i class="">locative</i> sense built into it. It imparts a locative
meaning to its object. TKD explains this phenomenon to us.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for
{chegh}, he has to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh}
doesn’t mean “return”. It means “return to”.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">Okrand glossed <b class="">chegh</b> with "return." When he was asked
about it later, he posted a message that "<b class="">chegh</b> 'return'
means 'return to a place.'" He has never glossed it "return (to)";
that was done by someone else (possibly yourself, this gloss comes
from the KLI's new words list). The other person's gloss is
correct, but Okrand is often not so precise as you're suggesting.</p><p class="">The inherent locative meaning of certain verbs is often not
expressed in Okrand's glosses, and we have to infer or discover
them. At the time we heard Chang say <b class="">DaH machegh,</b> we did
not have any evidence that <b class="">chegh</b> could take the
destination returned to as its object.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">Meanwhile, you could say the Moon orbits. You don’t
have to say what it orbits, if context makes that clear.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Similarly {jIchegh} means “I return.” Technically,
it does mean “I return (to),” but since I’m not mentioning what
the object is that I’m returning to, the better translation
omits the word “to”. That’s why the gloss puts “to” in
parentheses. It’s optional.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">In general, Okrand does not put words in parentheses in his
glosses because they're optional to the translation or to help the
translator choose the best translation; he does so to distinguish
different meanings of a word.<br class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class=""> You put the word “to” in your translation if there
is an explicit object. You don’t put the word “to” in your
English translation if there is no explicit direct object.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">If appropriate. <b class="">juH vIchegh</b><i class=""> I return home.</i> <b class="">naDev
chegh HoD</b><i class=""> The captain returns here.</i><br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com" class="">
<div class="">In the scene in question, everybody knows where the
speaker is returning to. He doesn’t need to mention it. He
probably could have said either {wIchegh} or {machegh}.</div>
</blockquote><p class=""><b class="">wIchegh</b><i class=""> We return to it</i> makes as little sense in
the Klingon in this context as it does in the English. Sure, you
can work out what he means, but it's not how you'd say it.</p>
<br class="">
<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>