<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2023 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro---
via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-a9d3234a-69e7-4d23-abc3-5e42ebfa328b-1690554782102@3c-app-webde-bs35">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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*?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Looks like a sloppy translation to me. "If the Fek'lhr merely
does not find that a person enters and/or leaves Gre'thor..."</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-a9d3234a-69e7-4d23-abc3-5e42ebfa328b-1690554782102@3c-app-webde-bs35">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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./</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Weeelllllll, not exactly. <b>ghoS</b> 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.</p>
<p><b>taw vIghoS</b><i> I go along the road.</i></p>
<p><b>vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS</b><i> I go along the road toward the
Great Hall.</i></p>
<p><b>'angweDvo' taw vIghoS</b><i> I go along the road from the
museum.</i></p>
<p><b>'angweDvo' vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS</b><i> I go along the road
from the museum to the Great Hall.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-a9d3234a-69e7-4d23-abc3-5e42ebfa328b-1690554782102@3c-app-webde-bs35">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This is poorly explained in boQwI'.</p>
<p>Start with TKD section 3.3.5.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions,
such as <b>ghoS</b> <i>approach, proceed.</i> The locative
suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects of such
verbs.</p>
<p>If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting
sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So there are some verbs that have inherently locative meanings.
Their objects indicate that location. <b>jaH</b> is one of those
verbs. Its meaning includes a location that represents the
destination of going. When you <b>jaH,</b> you <b>jaH</b><i> to</i>
someplace. Any object you add to <b>jaH</b> represents that
someplace. And if you want to put a <b>-Daq</b> on that
someplace, that's fine and optional and only a little redundant.</p>
<p><b>jIjaH</b><i> I go (to someplace).</i></p>
<p><b>vaS'a' vIjaH</b><i> I go to the Great Hall</i><b>.</b></p>
<p><b>vaS'a'Daq vIjaH</b><i> I go to the Great Hall.</i></p>
<p>There is no difference in meaning between the last two.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Let me illustrate the ambiguity. <b>vaS'a'Daq vIjaH.</b> This is
actually ambiguous. Does it mean that <b>vaS'a'Daq</b> is the
object, or does it mean <b>vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH,</b> where the
pronoun had been elided? What would <b>vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH</b>
mean? Well, <b>'oH</b> is the object of <b>jaH,</b> so it must
be the destination. <i>I go to it...</i> So then what is <b>vaS'a'Daq</b>
doing? If it's not the destination, it falls back to all the other
possible meanings of locative nouns. It probably means <i>I go to
it in the Great Hall.</i> 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: <b>vaS'a'Daq Hew vIjaH</b><i> In the
Great Hall, I go to the statue.</i> The action takes place IN
the Great Hall TOWARD the statue.</p>
<p>Here's where the verb prefix comes in. If I said <b>vaS'a'Daq
jIjaH,</b> it's clear from the verb prefix <b>jI-</b> that <b>vaS'a'Daq</b>
cannot be the object of <b>jaH:</b> the prefix <b>jI-</b> means
<i>no object.</i> So the Great Hall cannot be the destination.
Therefore, it must be where the going takes place. <i>In the
Great Hall, I go (someplace).</i><br>
</p>
<p>So in the sentence <b>ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq</b><b> 'Iw bIQtIq
ghoS,</b> we see exactly the same thing. The verb is <b>ghoS.</b>
The object of <b>ghoS</b> is the course followed. The object of <b>ghoS</b>
is <b>'Iw bIQtIq.</b> So <b>'Iw bIQtIq ghoS</b> must mean <i>He
goes along the River of Blood.</i> And <b>ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq</b>
must be a locative that is not the object (because <b>ghoS</b>
already has an object), so it must be something other than the
course followed. Here it means <i>to the great gates of Gre'thor,</i>
a destination. <b>ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS</b><i> He
goes along the River of Blood toward the great gates of
Gre'thor.</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:trinity-a9d3234a-69e7-4d23-abc3-5e42ebfa328b-1690554782102@3c-app-webde-bs35">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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)?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It means <i>three lines.</i> 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.</p>
<p>I suppose it's <i>possible</i> that <b>wej tlheghmey</b> could
mean <i>lines of three:</i> treating <b>wej</b> as a noun and
treating the whole thing as a noun-noun construction, you could
interpret it as having lines <b>(tlheghmey),</b> 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.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>