naDev bI'elpa' or naDev Da'elpa' for "before you enter here ?" ~ changan qIj
{naDev Da’elpa’}. If you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb. If you’re asking whether {‘el} takes an object, it does; e.g.: tach vI'el, HItlhej Let's go to the pub. (RT) Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' that course will take us into the [Great] Barrier as well! (ST5) neHmaH Da'el net tu' Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE) --Voragh From: mayqel qunen'oS naDev bI'elpa' or naDev Da'elpa' for "before you enter here ?"
On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
{naDev Da’elpa’}.
If you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb. If you’re asking whether {‘el} takes an object, it does; e.g.:
*tach vI'el*, *HItlhej* Let's go to the pub. (RT)
*Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'*
that course will take /us/ into the [/Great/] Barrier as well! (ST5)**
**
*neHmaH Da'el net tu'* Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)
He's asking whether *'el* is a verb with an inherent locative sense. The answer is no, it is not. The object of *'el* does not have to be a locative. The fact that *naDev* is automatically locative doesn't change the lack of locative requirements of *'el.* *tugh naDev wI'el */Soon we will enter here./ It's awkward in English to say /enter here;/ I wonder if *naDev* being inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon. You might prefer sentences like *tugh pa'vam wI'el* or *tugh Daqvam wI'el.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I’m just confused about the wording. Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear… {‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the subject and the agent, if you will. The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and end with a path that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The Washington, DC road”. You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The structure or area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a location. If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is a location. Everything you enter is a location. In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The preposition is unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into the meaning of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {‘el}. It would feel redundant, and then you’d need some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy. It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that it’s not the direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium… at the front gate. Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean the same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
{naDev Da’elpa’}.
If you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb. If you’re asking whether {‘el} takes an object, it does; e.g.:
tach vI'el, HItlhej Let's go to the pub. (RT)
Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'
that course will take us into the [Great] Barrier as well! (ST5)
neHmaH Da'el net tu' Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)
He's asking whether 'el is a verb with an inherent locative sense. The answer is no, it is not. The object of 'el does not have to be a locative. The fact that naDev is automatically locative doesn't change the lack of locative requirements of 'el.
tugh naDev wI'el Soon we will enter here.
It's awkward in English to say enter here; I wonder if naDev being inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon. You might prefer sentences like tugh pa'vam wI'el or tugh Daqvam wI'el.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
*betleHmeyraj boroQlaH, Sujoppa' 'ej Suway'pa'.* http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in the river." I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}... WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}? MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}. WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence. MO: Right. WM: {bav} MO: You don't need a {-Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting. WM: {Dech} - "surround." [[p.9]] [[-:=--]] MO: Same thing. WM: {ngaS} - "contain." [[-:=--]] MO: Same thing. WM: {vegh} MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing. WM: {'el} - "enter." [[-:=--]] MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay. It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't need that. On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:50 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I’m just confused about the wording.
Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…
{‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the subject and the agent, if you will.
The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and end with a path that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The Washington, DC road”.
You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The structure or area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a location. If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is a location. Everything you enter is a location.
In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The preposition is unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into the meaning of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {‘el}. It would feel redundant, and then you’d need some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy.
It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that it’s not the direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium… at the front gate.
Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean the same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it?
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
{naDev Da’elpa’}.
If you asking about {naDev}, it’s a noun in Klingon not an adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb. If you’re asking whether {‘el} takes an object, it does; e.g.:
*tach vI'el*, *HItlhej* Let's go to the pub. (RT)
*Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'*
that course will take *us* into the [*Great*] Barrier as well! (ST5)
*neHmaH Da'el net tu'* Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)
He's asking whether *'el* is a verb with an inherent locative sense. The answer is no, it is not. The object of *'el* does not have to be a locative. The fact that *naDev* is automatically locative doesn't change the lack of locative requirements of *'el.*
*tugh naDev wI'el **Soon we will enter here.*
It's awkward in English to say *enter here;* I wonder if *naDev* being inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon. You might prefer sentences like *tugh pa'vam wI'el* or *tugh Daqvam wI'el.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 3/11/2019 12:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I’m just confused about the wording.
Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…
{‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the subject and the agent, if you will.
The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and end with a path that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The Washington, DC road”.
You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The structure or area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a location. If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is a location. Everything you enter is a location.
In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The preposition is unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into the meaning of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {‘el}. It would feel redundant, and then you’d need some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy.
It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that it’s not the direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium… at the front gate.
Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean the same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it?
No, I think you're right, and I withdraw my earlier conclusion. If you say *pa'Daq bI'el,* that's different than saying*pa' Da'el.* The first says you're in the room and you enter something unspecified. The second says you enter location identified as the room. If this is the case, then you could say *pa'Daq Da'el* to refer to entering the room, and it would be one of those correct but redundant sentences. In every example Voragh posted, the object was a place being entered, an unmarked locative. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 11.03.2019 um 17:11 schrieb SuStel:
It's awkward in English to say /enter here;/
In this entire discussion, this is what is my question: can you really {'el} the {naDev}? I think of {'el} as "going into an enclosed area". Even the sector does not have walls around it, but it has an invisible or imagined border. "here" does not have a set border, it's more like a spot, wherever you point your finger at. Perhaps that's the reason why it sounds awkward. Unless I have missed a relevant canon example. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Locative
On 3/11/2019 1:18 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 11.03.2019 um 17:11 schrieb SuStel:
It's awkward in English to say /enter here;/
In this entire discussion, this is what is my question: can you really {'el} the {naDev}?
I think of {'el} as "going into an enclosed area". Even the sector does not have walls around it, but it has an invisible or imagined border. "here" does not have a set border, it's more like a spot, wherever you point your finger at.
Perhaps that's the reason why it sounds awkward.
Unless I have missed a relevant canon example.
*naDev* and /here/ are deitic, completely dependent on surrounding context to have meaning. Whatever /here/ or *naDev* you're referring to has the properties of that place. If /here/ or *naDev* is a box, then it's got the properties of a box. I don't know if *naDev vI'el* is awkward in Klingon, but if it is, it's probably because of the usual redundancy of locative-sense verbs having locative-marked objects. *naDev* is not marked locative, but it's always locative anyway. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
What troubled me about the naDev and the 'el, is that it sounds awkward in greek/english to say "I enter the here", which is the actual meaning of naDev vI'el. If I write Duj vI'el, then I feel it "normal": "I enter the ship". But the sound of "I enter the here", is rather strange. Anyways, I guess the awkwardness has to do with the fse translation, and not the actual klingon. I just didn't know whether the naDev can be used as a direct object. ~ changan qIj
On 3/11/2019 1:39 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
What troubled me about the naDev and the 'el, is that it sounds awkward in greek/english to say "I enter the here", which is the actual meaning of naDev vI'el.
If I write Duj vI'el, then I feel it "normal": "I enter the ship". But the sound of "I enter the here", is rather strange.
Anyways, I guess the awkwardness has to do with the fse translation, and not the actual klingon.
I just didn't know whether the naDev can be used as a direct object.
It can in *naDev ghoS*/Come here (clipped)!/ (PK) This certainly doesn't mean /while you're here in the place, come somewhere!/ Interestingly, /paq'batlh/ has a line: *batlh naDev SuDab*/Welcome to this place./ It isn't *batlh naDev boDab.* Maybe this means that *Dab* is not allowed to have a locative as its object, and *naDev* can't stop being a locative. Or maybe the sentence means /here, you will inhabit someplace honorably/, and it's not saying anything about possible objects of *Dab.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Remember that Klingon doesn’t have articles. The presence of articles varies a lot by language, and there are arbitrary times in each language that has articles when articles are needed. French requires them more often than English. Malasian doesn’t have them at all. Turkish doesn’t have them. ASL doesn’t have them. The difference between the awkward “I enter the here” and the less awkward “I enter here” is all about the definite article, which is definitely unnecessary for “here”, since there is only one “here” in the Universe, defined by deictic reference of the statement that contains it. The Universe is full of places that are somebody’s “here”, but MY “here” is unique (even if it’s scope might be a bit vague). Imagine two people planning a military operation, looking at a map. The index finger points to the spot defining “Here”. “You enter here.” Does that seem awkward to you? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:39 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
What troubled me about the naDev and the 'el, is that it sounds awkward in greek/english to say "I enter the here", which is the actual meaning of naDev vI'el.
If I write Duj vI'el, then I feel it "normal": "I enter the ship". But the sound of "I enter the here", is rather strange.
Anyways, I guess the awkwardness has to do with the fse translation, and not the actual klingon.
I just didn't know whether the naDev can be used as a direct object.
~ changan qIj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 11.03.2019 um 19:41 schrieb Will Martin:
Imagine two people planning a military operation, looking at a map. The index finger points to the spot defining “Here”. “You enter here.”
Does that seem awkward to you?
In that case I would definitely say {naDev bI'el}. In your example, "here" is not the thing being entered, it's the location where someone enters something else. {yI'el.} "Enter." {nuqDaq jI'elnIS?} "Where should I enter?" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de
On 3/11/2019 2:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Remember that Klingon doesn’t have articles. The presence of articles varies a lot by language, and there are arbitrary times in each language that has articles when articles are needed. French requires them more often than English. Malasian doesn’t have them at all. Turkish doesn’t have them. ASL doesn’t have them.
The difference between the awkward “I enter the here” and the less awkward “I enter here” is all about the definite article, which is definitely unnecessary for “here”, since there is only one “here” in the Universe, defined by deictic reference of the statement that contains it. The Universe is full of places that are somebody’s “here”, but MY “here” is unique (even if it’s scope might be a bit vague).
Imagine two people planning a military operation, looking at a map. The index finger points to the spot defining “Here”. “You enter here.”
Does that seem awkward to you?
Except that isn't expressed by *naDev Da'el;*//it's expressed by *naDev bI'el.* The former is like "you enter this place"; the latter is "at this place, you enter (some other thing I'm talking about)." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin