I've asked Dr. Okrand for clarification about {mej}. In posting our conversations, I've had to summarise and make some edits (always in [brackets]), because the back-and-forth was long and threaded and sometimes when we refer back to "the second option" or whatever it isn't clear without context. I can't quote everything and have to make cutoffs somewhere. I now realise that I had made an error in summarising the situation in my previous message. Dr. Okrand has also gone back and realised that he had misread something. But it's fortunate that I posted to the mailing list, because y'all are very sharp-eyed and it's better to catch errors before the paq'batlh is out than afterwards. For that, I thank you. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 11:08, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
MO:
Good catch. Both ways are okay, but the {-vo’} is not needed here.
The error I made in my summary was this: I presented the options as {chalqachlIjvo' Damej} vs. {chalqachlIj Damej}. Looking over the thread, Dr. Okrand's "both ways" was just referring to with and without {-vo'}, and {chalqachlIjvo' bImej} was what he'd actually intended by "without". (The *original* line in the 1st edition had said {chalqachlIjvo' bImej}, and his reply was comparing that against the suggested revision of {chalqachlIj Damej}.) However, he hadn't explicitly said {chalqachlIjvo' Damej} was wrong. The way that he'd written about {lojmItmeyvo' Damejta'} suggested that {lojmitmeyvo'} might've been the object of {Damejta'}. He's acknowledged in his reply to me that this was unclear, and has clarified things below. De'vID:
[snip summary of situation] So {chalqachlIj Damejpu'} is correct (if the tower is not your starting point). But when used with {-vo'}, should it be: {chalqachlIjvo' bImejpu'} (with the no-object prefix) or {chalqachlIjvo' Damejpu'} (with the object of {mej} marked with {-vo'})?
MO:
It should be {chalqachlIjvo' bImejpu'}.
De'vID: In the first example you cite, {lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’} “you left from the gates” (p. 193, line 11), what's the object of {Damejta'}? [Here I give two different possible readings of the entire passage, only partly quoted below because the full quote is just a breakdown of p. 193 lines 11-13.] De'vID: [option 1: {ghe'tor} is the object] {ghe'tor Da'elta' 'ej lojmItmeyvo' ghe'tor Damejta'} "you... entered Gre'thor, and left Gre'thor from the gates" MO:
After re-reading the story, I realize I misinterpreted what was going on (in the story, not in the grammar necessarily). I should have said something like "Kahless didn't really spend any time at the gates — he went right through/past them and, after doing what he did in Gre'thor, went through/past the gates again on his way out of Gre'thor without being harmed. So Kotar is describing all of this, for better or worse, by referencing Gre'thor's checkpoint as an exit point rather than simply saying Kahless left."
I think [this reading where {ghe'tor} is the object] is right. De'vID: [option 2: {lojmItmeyvo'} is the object] TKD says that if the locative suffix {-Daq} is used with verbs whose meaning include locative notions, it's redundant but not wrong. (TKD also says that {-vo'} is similar to {-Daq}.) So in {lojmItmeyvo' Damejta'} the object of {Damejta'} could be {lojmItmeyvo'}, without contradicting TKD. MO:
TKD does say that about {-Daq}, but it's more complex than the quickie explanation there. Fortunately, for purposes of finishing up the paq'batlh, it doesn't matter right now.
De'vID: The issue here is that the English isn't clear. Does "entered Gre'thor, / And left the gates unharmed" mean only that Kahless entered Gre'thor unharmed, or that Kahless entered *and left* Gre'thor unharmed? MO:
Right. The English passage isn't clear all by itself. But in the context of the story, I think it means that Kahless entered Gre'thor, did whatever he did there, and then left Gre'thor and went on his way fit as a {ngItHel}. Kotar seems to be suggesting that before Kahless did this, others had tried to get in and out of Gre'thor but either failed or were harmed in the process (sustaining their injuries either deep in Gre'thor or at the gates on the way out… or maybe after being caught by the pursuing Qempa'keh).
De'vID: About the second example you cite, {ghe’tor Da’elmo’ ’ej Damejmo’} “because you entered and left Gre’thor} (p. 195, line 26), you wrote: "[snip full quote] So no {-vo’} is needed." If no {-vo'} is needed, then {ghe'tor Damejmo'} is correct. But if {-vo'} had been needed, would the correct sentence have been {ghe'torvo' bImejmo'} or {ghe'torvo' Damejmo'}? MO:
{ghe'torvo' bImejmo'}
[Here follows a discussion about what changes we should send to the editors, in light of this update.] De'vID: [By the way, does] what you wrote about {-vo'} applies to {tlheD} as well as {mej}? [Here, I quote p. 85, lines 10-13] Should it be {ghe'torvo' tlheD} or {ghe'tor tlheD}? MO:
I think for the paq'batlh, we should change the line to {ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH}.
I think this is better for two reasons: (1) Vocabulary: Using {mej} rather than{tlheD} makes the sentence match the later pairings of {'el} and {mej} on pp. 193 and 195 (all three referring to the same event). (2) Grammar/style: In this passage, it's more interesting stylistically (maybe even poetically) if the two parts of the sentence are similar, that is, if the nouns preceding the verbs are grammatically the same (neither has a suffix). And, as a bonus, it matches p. 195 and maybe p. 193, depending on what we decide to do there. I realize this doesn't answer the question about {tlheD} and {-vo'}, but first things (paq'batlh revisions) first. De'vID: Thanks for clarifying this. MO:
I'm not sure that I did!
(end of message) -- De'vID