Am 29.03.2020 um 09:11 schrieb De'vID:
Because the definition is "propagate", not "propagate in/through"? Although, looking at the examples, we have: {wa'vatlh DIS vIvIb} "I time-travel 100 years into the future"
This indicates that the object of {vIb} is the distance,
theoretically, who says that this is a distance? Maybe it's thing being travelled through, like in English "time". compare this {wa' jaj vIvIb} - "I time-travel [through] one day" and {wa' bIQ'a' vIvIb} - "I propagate [through] one ocean"
'otlhmey} "the photons propagated the ocean (i.e., the length? width? area? of the ocean)", though I wouldn't write it that way.
This is grammatically identical. Why not semantically? Again, I need to add that I am asking this because I do not entirely understand the English word. But Maybe this is one of the things that need some explanation from Maltz. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/VIb