Using object prefix with {-vo'}
juHDaq vIjaH I go to the house juHDaq jIjaH The going takes place in the vicinity of the house juHvo' jIjaH I am going away from the house We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object. But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ? qunnoq
On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
juHDaq vIjaH I go to the house
juHDaq jIjaH The going takes place in the vicinity of the house
juHvo' jIjaH I am going away from the house
We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.
But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?
*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*-ing /to./ There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed. On the other hand, I bet *jaghvo' vIDoH* is considered a redundant form of *jagh vIDoH* for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because their objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you could find a verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet /*N*/*mo' vI/V/* would be considered just as redundant. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH* -ing *to.*
There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples: {pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27) {pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28) {jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73) So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>. @mayqel Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't think it's inherently wrong, but there might be a shade of nuance in the meaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}. Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} would insist more on the fact that you're *specifically *going AWAY from the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going somewhere, which happens to be outside/ away from the house". That's just my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would understand it differently. 2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
juHDaq vIjaH I go to the house
juHDaq jIjaH The going takes place in the vicinity of the house
juHvo' jIjaH I am going away from the house
We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.
But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?
*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*-ing *to.*
There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
On the other hand, I bet *jaghvo' vIDoH* is considered a redundant form of *jagh vIDoH* for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because their objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you could find a verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet *N**mo' vIV* would be considered just as redundant.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/9/2017 10:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*-ing /to./
There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:
{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27) {pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28) {jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)
So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.
I didn't say it wasn't. Specifically, I said that a *-vo'* noun /as the object of/ *jaH* might not work (and only might). I didn't say anything about a *-vo'* noun that isn't the object of *jaH.* In the TKD example above, you can't tell whether *pa'vo' yIjaH* has *pa'vo'* as the object of *jaH* or as a syntactic noun at the beginning. Also, Okrand has revised his use of *-Daq* a little since TKD came out. For instance, in PK (before the /HolQeD /article where he talks about verbs of motion) he says *naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'*/can we get to the Great Hall from here?/ According to the /HolQeD/ interview, that should mean /can we, in the Great Hall, go from here?/ When Okrand revises the rules, I see that as invoking the statement in TKD's introduction that warns that the grammar is only a poorly understood sketch. So the validity of those examples in TKD to verify this point must be considered suspect. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
So, to summarize.. {juH vIjaH} "I go to the house" = correct {juHDaq vIjaH} "I go to the house" = correct but redundant {juHvo' jIjaH} "I go away from the house" = correct {juHvo' vIjaH} "I go away from the house" = awkward and maybe wrong/problematic. Right ? qunnoq jan puqloD On 9 Aug 2017 5:37 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: On 8/9/2017 10:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote: *juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently
includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH* -ing *to.*
There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples: {pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27) {pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28) {jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73) So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>. I didn't say it wasn't. Specifically, I said that a *-vo'* noun *as the object of* *jaH* might not work (and only might). I didn't say anything about a *-vo'* noun that isn't the object of *jaH.* In the TKD example above, you can't tell whether *pa'vo' yIjaH* has *pa'vo'* as the object of *jaH* or as a syntactic noun at the beginning. Also, Okrand has revised his use of *-Daq* a little since TKD came out. For instance, in PK (before the *HolQeD *article where he talks about verbs of motion) he says *naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'** can we get to the Great Hall from here?* According to the *HolQeD* interview, that should mean *can we, in the Great Hall, go from here?* When Okrand revises the rules, I see that as invoking the statement in TKD's introduction that warns that the grammar is only a poorly understood sketch. So the validity of those examples in TKD to verify this point must be considered suspect. -- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/9/2017 10:57 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
{juH vIjaH} "I go to the house" = correct {juHDaq vIjaH} "I go to the house" = correct but redundant {juHvo' jIjaH} "I go away from the house" = correct {juHvo' vIjaH} "I go away from the house" = awkward and maybe wrong/problematic.
I don't want to overstate the last one. It may be perfectly good. It doesn't FEEL particularly bad to me. But when you think carefully about what it means, it doesn't seem to add up. I would be much more inclined to accept *juHvo' vIghoS* as correct but redundant, because *ghoS* encompasses both /locative/ and /away/ meanings in its object. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Aurélie Demonchaux -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel