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*?
Looks like a sloppy translation to me. "If the Fek'lhr merely does not find that a person enters and/or leaves Gre'thor..."
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.
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./
Weeelllllll, not exactly. ghoS 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.
taw vIghoS I go along the road.
vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS I go along the road toward the Great Hall.
'angweDvo' taw vIghoS I go along the road from the museum.
'angweDvo' vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS I go along the road
from the museum to the Great Hall.
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?
This is poorly explained in boQwI'.
Start with TKD section 3.3.5.
There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as ghoS approach, proceed. The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs.
If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong.
So there are some verbs that have inherently locative meanings. Their objects indicate that location. jaH is one of those verbs. Its meaning includes a location that represents the destination of going. When you jaH, you jaH to someplace. Any object you add to jaH represents that someplace. And if you want to put a -Daq on that someplace, that's fine and optional and only a little redundant.
jIjaH I go (to someplace).
vaS'a' vIjaH I go to the Great Hall.
vaS'a'Daq vIjaH I go to the Great Hall.
There is no difference in meaning between the last two.
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.
Let me illustrate the ambiguity. vaS'a'Daq vIjaH. This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that vaS'a'Daq is the object, or does it mean vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH, where the pronoun had been elided? What would vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH mean? Well, 'oH is the object of jaH, so it must be the destination. I go to it... So then what is vaS'a'Daq doing? If it's not the destination, it falls back to all the other possible meanings of locative nouns. It probably means I go to it in the Great Hall. 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: vaS'a'Daq Hew vIjaH In the Great Hall, I go to the statue. The action takes place IN the Great Hall TOWARD the statue.
Here's where the verb prefix comes in. If I said vaS'a'Daq
jIjaH, it's clear from the verb prefix jI- that vaS'a'Daq
cannot be the object of jaH: the prefix jI- means
no object. So the Great Hall cannot be the destination.
Therefore, it must be where the going takes place. In the
Great Hall, I go (someplace).
So in the sentence ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS, we see exactly the same thing. The verb is ghoS. The object of ghoS is the course followed. The object of ghoS is 'Iw bIQtIq. So 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS must mean He goes along the River of Blood. And ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq must be a locative that is not the object (because ghoS already has an object), so it must be something other than the course followed. Here it means to the great gates of Gre'thor, a destination. ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS He goes along the River of Blood toward the great gates of Gre'thor.
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)?
It means three lines. 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.
I suppose it's possible that wej tlheghmey could
mean lines of three: treating wej as a noun and
treating the whole thing as a noun-noun construction, you could
interpret it as having lines (tlheghmey), 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.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name