The verb {chep} means "to be prosperous, to prosper", and so we have the {yIchep} for "prosper !" (imperative). But if the only definition given to {chep} was "to be prosperous", then we couldn't have the {yIchep} and so we would have {yIchep'eghmoH}, right ? ..and with regards to the {Dab} on the paq'batlh example. A little bird told me, that according to the KLI mailing list 1999.07.19, "In Klingon, when one lives at a place, he or she is thought of as occupying or inhabiting it. That is, he or she is not seen as doing something at a location, but rather as doing something to it" So in this context, the {'op ben pa' Dab ngan} should be written instead {'op ben pa' luDab ngan} for "some years ago inhabitants resided the there". The only interpretation of the canon sentence which I could find, in-keeping with the above list's comment, is "some years ago an inhabitant resided the there". But I don't think this is the intended meaning; if only one resides somewhere, then this somewhere hardly qualifies as being alive and prosperous. qunnoq On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:26 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/7/2017 10:20 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:

'op ben pa' Dab ngan 'ej chep [translation unavailable] (PB)

Deb mojpu' vavDaj yer 'ej choSchoHlu'pu' 'e' tu' 'op ben pa' Dab ngan 'ej chep

He finds the lands of his father Barren and deserted, It was alive and prosperous once.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 7/7/2017 10:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

The verb {chep} means "to be prosperous, to prosper", and so we have the {yIchep} for "prosper !" (imperative).

But if the only definition given to {chep} was "to be prosperous", then we couldn't have the {yIchep} and so we would have {yIchep'eghmoH}, right ?

Yes, *yIchep* violates KGT's rule that imperative verbs expressing states or qualities just include *-'egh* and *-moH.* The rule has been violated elsewhere too, mostly but not always before KGT was published.

..and with regards to the {Dab} on the paq'batlh example.

A little bird told me, that according to the KLI mailing list 1999.07.19, "In Klingon, when one lives at a place, he or she is thought of as occupying or inhabiting it. That is, he or she is not seen as doing something at a location, but rather as doing something to it"

So in this context, the {'op ben pa' Dab ngan} should be written instead {'op ben pa' luDab ngan} for "some years ago inhabitants resided the there".

The only interpretation of the canon sentence which I could find, in-keeping with the above list's comment, is "some years ago an inhabitant resided the there". But I don't think this is the intended meaning; if only one resides somewhere, then this somewhere hardly qualifies as being alive and prosperous.

I can think of three possibilities: 1. It was supposed to be *luDab,* and the *lu-* was erroneously dropped. 2. The subject is singular: /some years ago an inhabitant inhabited there./ This is not an unreasonable way to render literally the figurative /[the land] was alive,/ though I would have expected plural inhabitants. 3. It is using *pa'* as a non-subject, non-object noun placed before the OVS structure, and *Dab* here has no object: /some years ago, thereabouts, inhabitants inhabited (in general)./ This is not actually ungrammatical, just a bit odd. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 7/7/2017 12:00 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:

[op ben pa' Dab ngan]

On Jul 7, 2017, at 11:16 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

...

I can think of three possibilities:

A fourth occurred to me. Perhaps the English "lands" influenced the Klingon rendition, and {Dab} is intended to have a plural object. {...pa' [yermey] Dab ngan[pu']...}

Or maybe *pa'* itself is to be interpreted as plural: /thereaboutses./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 7/7/2017 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

...

It is using pa' as a non-subject, non-object noun placed before the OVS structure, and Dab here has no object: some years ago, thereabouts, inhabitants inhabited (in general). This is not actually ungrammatical, just a bit odd. This confuses me a little; is it legal to have an unmarked noun before the OVS ?

Certainly. Both time expressions and inherently locative nouns *(naDev, pa', Dat)* may go before the OVS. *wa'leS jImej* /I will leave tomorrow/ *naDev SoQmey vIjatlh*/I give speeches here /*pa' Heghpu'*/he died there/

And something else.. Would you accept as grammatically correct the {pa' vIparHa'} for "I like the there" ? Can the {pa'} (in its meaning as "there") be used as an object ?

There's no actual rule against it, but I think it normally doesn't occur. It /does/ occur with verbs of motion, because they inherently treat their objects as locatives, but you don't see this sort of thing with other verbs. A thing you like is not an inherently locative concept. So whether it's grammatically correct is unclear, but you're better off not trying to do it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name