Recently the list had a short discussion about the difference between {pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}. I'm curious about the relationship between those things when you add -moH onto the end of it. Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is it "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere unspecified)"? Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former, but I'm unsure. --jevreH
On 2/20/2019 11:38 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Recently the list had a short discussion about the difference between {pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}.
I'm curious about the relationship between those things when you add -moH onto the end of it.
Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is it "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere unspecified)"? Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former, but I'm unsure.
Let's preface this with the understanding that we're talking about *pa'* /room,/ not *pa'*/thereabouts./ I'd actually rather change this word to *Duj*/vessel/ so we don't get confused, because *pa'* causes all sorts of problems with this analysis. Let's also assume we're not going to be redundant by adding *-Daq* to a verb's object. The following completely ignores that possibility. Remember this conversation (http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt) where Okrand says that you can tell that *qajatlh* is employing what we later called the prefix trick, because the direct object of *jatlh* is the thing spoken, not the person spoken to, so if the prefix indicates the person spoken to it must be indicating the indirect object. Since the object of *jatlh *is that which is spoken, and since /you/ or /I/ or /we/ cannot be spoken (and therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first or second person is the indirect object. We have exactly the same situation here. The (direct) object of *ghoS* is the path followed, not the person following it, so since the prefix *qa-* indicates a person, it must be indicating the indirect object. There's your prefix trick right there. *DujDaq qaghoSmoH* means /In the ship, I cause you to go (along some unspecified path)./ It's ambiguous in the sentence whether you or I or both of us are in the ship, but you're not going /to/ the ship. Going to the ship would be *Duj qaghoSmoH* or *SoHvaD Duj vIghoSmoH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2019, at 12:49, SuStel We have exactly the same situation here. The (direct) object of ghoS is the path followed, not the person following it, so since the prefix qa- indicates a person, it must be indicating the indirect object. There's your prefix trick right there. DujDaq qaghoSmoH means In the ship, I cause you to go (along some unspecified path). It's ambiguous in the sentence whether you or I or both of us are in the ship, but you're not going to the ship. Going to the ship would be Duj qaghoSmoH or SoHvaD Duj vIghoSmoH.
I see. That makes sense. So in this case the “beneficiary” of the action (marked with -vaD) is made to go to the location (marked as the direct object). So it follows the same pattern as all the other -moH transitive verbs (don’t know why I overthought it). So, something like: {quSDajDaq jagh yaSvaD bIghHa’ jaHmoH HoDma’} would be “From his chair, our captain made the enemy officer go to prision”? —jevreH
On 2/20/2019 12:59 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
So, something like: {quSDajDaq jagh yaSvaD bIghHa’ jaHmoH HoDma’} would be “From his chair, our captain made the enemy officer go to prision”?
*pup!* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
If the enemy commander goes from his chair to the prison, then why write quSDajDaq, instead of quSDajvo' ? ~ mayqel *capricorn* qunen'oS
On 2/20/2019 2:48 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If the enemy commander goes from his chair to the prison, then why write quSDajDaq, instead of quSDajvo' ?
*quSDajDaq jagh yaSvaD bIghHa' jaHmoH HoDma'* /From his chair, our captain made the enemy officer go to prision/ It doesn't mean the enemy officer goes from his chair to the prison. It means the captain is sitting in his chair, and from that location he orders the detention of the enemy officer. // -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I see. But if we did use quSDajvo' instead of quSDajDaq, would the meaning be that the enemy commander sits at his chair, and from there he is caused to go to prison ? ~ 'elaDya'ngan
On 2/20/2019 2:56 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
But if we did use quSDajvo' instead of quSDajDaq, would the meaning be that the enemy commander sits at his chair, and from there he is caused to go to prison ?
No. *-vo'* involves motion away from something, even if that motion is just your line of sight. There is no motion or direction involved in being in your chair when you issue an order to put someone in prison. That happens /at/ your chair or /in/ your chair or /on/ your chair in Klingon, not /from/ your chair. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ok, let me ask this differently. If the enemy commander is sitting at his chair, and the captain causes him to go from the chair on which the enemy commander sits to prison, then how would we say that ? ~ m q
I think there's an ambiguity in the use of -Daq in this case, and so you'd have to use context to infer or explicitly specify: maybe {quSDaj ba'taHvIS jagh yaS, ghaHvaD quS mejmoH HoDma', bIghHa' ghoSmoH je}? "While the enemy officer was in his chair, our captain made him leave the chair and go to prison"... kinda wordy though. --jevreH On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:17 PM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the motion of the commander away from his chair to the prison ?
~ m q _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/20/2019 3:15 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If the enemy commander is sitting at his chair, and the captain causes him to go from the chair on which the enemy commander sits to prison, then how would we say that ?
*jaghla' quSvo' jaghla'vaD bIghHa' jaHmoH HoD* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If the enemy commander goes from his chair to the prison, then why write quSDajDaq, instead of quSDajvo' ?
“From his chair” is idiomatic English for the idea of someone doing something while sitting in his chair. It does not express the kind of motion away from the chair that would call for using Klingon {-vaD}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
...the kind of motion away from the chair that would call for using Klingon {-vaD}.
not lughmoHwI' qoq yIvoq. lughmoHwI'qoq 'oH. I meant {-vo'}, of course. Klingon autocorrect has a long way to go before it’s ready for general use. -- ghunchu'wI'
I, for one, would need context to flesh out what you mean by {pa’Daq qaghoSmoH}. Absent that, I could be in the room on the phone talking to you, ordering you, outside in a car, to follow that cab. I don’t know the cab’s course, but I know it’s following one. My greatest suspicion is that we know that I cause you to move along a specific (if unspecified) course, and the action of causing this occurs in the room. It is possible that the prefix trick is involved, given the person and number of the prefix. It is weirdly possible that you are the landmark of the path and that I’m causing some unspecified entity to traverse that path. A guided missile, perhaps? I’m in the room with the launch button. So long, sucker. I’m also sure that given the right context, the going occurs in the room, though the path is not named by the room. Mostly, I think it’s a weird enough sentence to deserve a remarkable back story. Remind me someday to explain: “We can’t do popcorn. The chickens are too short.” Context can be important. You also reminded me of my one-room cabin, which I named {reH pa’}, since it either means “always there”, “the room plays”, or it’s clipped Klingon for “playroom” (reHmeH pa’). Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
On Feb 20, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently the list had a short discussion about the difference between {pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}.
I'm curious about the relationship between those things when you add -moH onto the end of it.
Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is it "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere unspecified)"? Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former, but I'm unsure.
--jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel -
Will Martin