<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2021 12:41 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">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>There's no such thing as an implied prepositional relationship.
The word <i>preposition</i> simply means <i>comes before.</i> In
English, prepositions express the relationship a noun has with
other things (not necessarily a verb — <i>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>I can express a relationship with a preposition: <i>I give the
book to the officer.</i> I can express exactly the same
relationship without a preposition: <i>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>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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><i>The moon orbits around the Earth </i>is perfectly acceptable
English, and you'll find plenty of astronomers saying <i>orbit
around.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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>If you want to get your terminology right, say that <b>chegh</b>
has a <i>locative</i> sense built into it. It imparts a locative
meaning to its object. TKD explains this phenomenon to us.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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>Okrand glossed <b>chegh</b> with "return." When he was asked
about it later, he posted a message that "<b>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>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>DaH machegh,</b> we did
not have any evidence that <b>chegh</b> could take the
destination returned to as its object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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>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>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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>If appropriate. <b>juH vIchegh</b><i> I return home.</i> <b>naDev
chegh HoD</b><i> The captain returns here.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DAB230CF-EED5-4A60-948A-96DE194A5370@mac.com">
<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><b>wIchegh</b><i> 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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>