SuStel: *> jIHDaq ve'**> he travels on me*
He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'*because the verb prefix agrees with *he/she/it/they/none.*
I fail to see how the {jIHDaq ve'} produces the "he travels on me". According to the canon (or so I think) example of {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} for "I go in the river/I am moving along the river" (HQ 7.4, Dec 1998), whenever we have the {-Daq} with a verb of movement, which verb of movement has a verb prefix indicating no object, then the {-Daq} indicates the location where the going takes place. So, as I understand the example of {jIHDaq ve'} the meaning isn't "he travels (with a purpose) on me"; it is rather "he is traveling with a purpose in the vicinity of me". qunnoq On 5 Jul 2017 8:52 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/5/2017 1:26 PM, David Holt wrote:
ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:
DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.
If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..
shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?
Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not referring to a single person. To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq bove'meH bonablaH}. The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a point of contention or argument.
It's not that it's optional; it's that it's redundant. Let me use an example that makes it clear what is an object and what isn't (assuming *ve'* works like *jaH*).
*jIH muve' * *he travels to me *I am his destination. *jIH* is the object of *ve'.*
*jIHDaq ve' * *he travels on me *He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that *jIHDaq* is not the object of *ve'* because the verb prefix agrees with *he/she/it/they/none.*
*jIHDaq muve' * *he travels to at-me; he travels to me-as-location *This is grammatical; you're just marking *me* explicitly as a location. The verb prefix agrees with *jIHDaq* and shows that that's its object. But since *ve'* includes the notion that its object is a location, this is redundant. I have tried to reproduce its effect in the English translation above. The Klingon is more formally grammatically correct than the English.
Unfortunately, the line from the movie is simply *jIve'.* We don't actually know whether it is a "verb of motion" or not. Since it is compared to *leng,* which is a verb of motion, my money is on *ve'* being one too.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org