Cleaning outdoor dogs ? Seriously ?
tera'Daq wa' Ha'DIbaH Samlu' ; loS 'uS ghaj 'ej motlh veD ghaj je. tlhIngan targh rur Ha'DIbaHvam 'ej Ha'DIbaHvamvaD dog lupong tera'ngan. tlhaQmo' 'ej matlhmo', luvuv HochHom tera'nganpu' 'ej luparHa' je ; pIj juHmeychajDaq lulan je.. DaH, pIj mIlloghvam lu'cha' ngevmeH much : puchpa'Daq dog Say'moHlu'. 'ach jISIv : luSay'moHlu' 'e' lupoQ'a' dogmey ? ben law', yotlhDaq HatlhDaq, dogmey law' ghajpu' vavwI'. yotlhvamDaq reH tlhab dogmey. 'ej reH yavDaq Qot bIH. meqvammo', not DISay'moHta'. qatlh DISay'nISmoH ? DaH DISay'moHchugh vaj qaSDI' vagh tup lamqa' ! 'ej maHvaD not jatlh Ha'DIbaH Qel, dogvam yISaymoH ! toH, ngoDvam vIHar : lam Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' net pIH. ngoDvammo' pe'vIl puchpa' dog 'elnISmoH pagh ! mop Hurgh
{Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} animals which dwell in the countryside or {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} animals which dwell in the countryside since the {Dab} includes the "in/at" meaning, I think the correct must be {Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}. I think the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} would be used if the {Dab} didn't include the "in/at", case in which the meaning would be "animals who dwell the countryside". after all we say {quSDaq jIba'} and not {quSDaq vIba'}, qar'a' ? but I just want to make certain.. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
tera'Daq wa' Ha'DIbaH Samlu' ; loS 'uS ghaj 'ej motlh veD ghaj je.
tlhIngan targh rur Ha'DIbaHvam 'ej Ha'DIbaHvamvaD dog lupong tera'ngan.
tlhaQmo' 'ej matlhmo', luvuv HochHom tera'nganpu' 'ej luparHa' je ; pIj juHmeychajDaq lulan je..
DaH, pIj mIlloghvam lu'cha' ngevmeH much : puchpa'Daq dog Say'moHlu'. 'ach jISIv : luSay'moHlu' 'e' lupoQ'a' dogmey ?
ben law', yotlhDaq HatlhDaq, dogmey law' ghajpu' vavwI'. yotlhvamDaq reH tlhab dogmey. 'ej reH yavDaq Qot bIH.
meqvammo', not DISay'moHta'. qatlh DISay'nISmoH ? DaH DISay'moHchugh vaj qaSDI' vagh tup lamqa' !
'ej maHvaD not jatlh Ha'DIbaH Qel, dogvam yISaymoH !
toH, ngoDvam vIHar : lam Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' net pIH. ngoDvammo' pe'vIl puchpa' dog 'elnISmoH pagh !
mop Hurgh
The second sentence is correct. Think of {Dab} as meaning “inhabit” and it’ll make more sense. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name From: mayqel qunenoS
SuStel:
The second sentence is correct. Think of {Dab} as meaning “inhabit” and it’ll make more sense.
maj. So, since the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} is the correct choice, then if I want to say "I enter the room", I will say {pa' vI'el} right ? But I still can't understand.. If the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} and the {pa' vI'el} are correct, then why don't we say too {quSDaq vIba'}, for "I sit on the chair" ? If the answer is "because we have the {-Daq} on the {qus}", then I will say that both the {Dab} and {'el} have within them an integrated "in". Unless of course both the "dwell/reside in/at and go in" have the concepts of "in/at" working in an optional way. In that case, if we disregarded the "in/at", then I understand we could say "I dwell the house / I enter the room", thus justifying the {vIDab} / {vI'el}. Perhaps the answer lies on the meaning which the english sentence tries to convey ; if it is "I inhabit the house" then {juH vIDab}, if it is "I dwell in the house" then {juH jIDab}. Similarly, if the meaning is "I enter the room" then perhaps the way to go is {pa' vI'el}. But if it is "I go in the room" then {pa' jI'el}. On the other hand, if the {'el} is to be considered a verb of movement then we always need to say {pa' vI'el} and the plot thickens.. Anyway this is rather confusing, so if someone could shine some darkness on the matter, I would surely appreciate it. mIv Hurgh On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:49 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The second sentence is correct. Think of {Dab} as meaning “inhabit” and it’ll make more sense.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
From: mayqel qunenoS Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:52 AM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Cleaning outdoor dogs ? Seriously ?
{Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}
animals which dwell in the countryside
or
{Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}
animals which dwell in the countryside
since the {Dab} includes the "in/at" meaning, I think the correct must
be {Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}. I think the {Hatlh luDabbogh
Ha'DIbaHmey} would be used if the {Dab} didn't include the "in/at",
case in which the meaning would be "animals who dwell the
countryside".
after all we say {quSDaq jIba'} and not {quSDaq vIba'}, qar'a' ?
but I just want to make certain..
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
tera'Daq wa' Ha'DIbaH Samlu' ; loS 'uS ghaj 'ej motlh veD ghaj je.
tlhIngan targh rur Ha'DIbaHvam 'ej Ha'DIbaHvamvaD dog lupong tera'ngan.
tlhaQmo' 'ej matlhmo', luvuv HochHom tera'nganpu' 'ej luparHa' je ;
pIj juHmeychajDaq lulan je..
DaH, pIj mIlloghvam lu'cha' ngevmeH much : puchpa'Daq dog Say'moHlu'.
'ach jISIv : luSay'moHlu' 'e' lupoQ'a' dogmey ?
ben law', yotlhDaq HatlhDaq, dogmey law' ghajpu' vavwI'. yotlhvamDaq
reH tlhab dogmey. 'ej reH yavDaq Qot bIH.
meqvammo', not DISay'moHta'. qatlh DISay'nISmoH ? DaH DISay'moHchugh
vaj qaSDI' vagh tup lamqa' !
'ej maHvaD not jatlh Ha'DIbaH Qel, dogvam yISaymoH !
toH, ngoDvam vIHar : lam Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' net pIH.
ngoDvammo' pe'vIl puchpa' dog 'elnISmoH pagh !
mop Hurgh
_______________________________________________
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 the other hand.. Perhaps, I'm approaching this wrong way ; I'm paying attention to the english translation of the words {Dab} and {'el}, without actually *feeling* their meaning. As SuStel pointed out {Dab} means "inhabit" ; the "in/at", at its english translation, were put in an effort to provide for the reader a better understanding of its meaning. Similarly the {'el} means "enter" and that's it. The "go in" was added in an effort to further explain its meaning. In dark of the above, then we could indeed understand the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} and the {pa' vI'el}. Now, as far as the {quSDaq jIba'} is concerned, we can understand why we don't use {quSDaq vIba'}, for the simple reason that "I sit on the chair" ; I don't "sit the chair". mop Hurgh qunnoq On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:17 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
The second sentence is correct. Think of {Dab} as meaning “inhabit” and it’ll make more sense.
maj.
So, since the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} is the correct choice, then if I want to say "I enter the room", I will say {pa' vI'el} right ?
But I still can't understand.. If the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} and the {pa' vI'el} are correct, then why don't we say too {quSDaq vIba'}, for "I sit on the chair" ? If the answer is "because we have the {-Daq} on the {qus}", then I will say that both the {Dab} and {'el} have within them an integrated "in".
Unless of course both the "dwell/reside in/at and go in" have the concepts of "in/at" working in an optional way.
In that case, if we disregarded the "in/at", then I understand we could say "I dwell the house / I enter the room", thus justifying the {vIDab} / {vI'el}.
Perhaps the answer lies on the meaning which the english sentence tries to convey ; if it is "I inhabit the house" then {juH vIDab}, if it is "I dwell in the house" then {juH jIDab}. Similarly, if the meaning is "I enter the room" then perhaps the way to go is {pa' vI'el}. But if it is "I go in the room" then {pa' jI'el}. On the other hand, if the {'el} is to be considered a verb of movement then we always need to say {pa' vI'el} and the plot thickens..
Anyway this is rather confusing, so if someone could shine some darkness on the matter, I would surely appreciate it.
mIv Hurgh
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:49 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The second sentence is correct. Think of {Dab} as meaning “inhabit” and it’ll make more sense.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
From: mayqel qunenoS Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:52 AM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Cleaning outdoor dogs ? Seriously ?
{Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}
animals which dwell in the countryside
or
{Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}
animals which dwell in the countryside
since the {Dab} includes the "in/at" meaning, I think the correct must
be {Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey}. I think the {Hatlh luDabbogh
Ha'DIbaHmey} would be used if the {Dab} didn't include the "in/at",
case in which the meaning would be "animals who dwell the
countryside".
after all we say {quSDaq jIba'} and not {quSDaq vIba'}, qar'a' ?
but I just want to make certain..
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
tera'Daq wa' Ha'DIbaH Samlu' ; loS 'uS ghaj 'ej motlh veD ghaj je.
tlhIngan targh rur Ha'DIbaHvam 'ej Ha'DIbaHvamvaD dog lupong tera'ngan.
tlhaQmo' 'ej matlhmo', luvuv HochHom tera'nganpu' 'ej luparHa' je ;
pIj juHmeychajDaq lulan je..
DaH, pIj mIlloghvam lu'cha' ngevmeH much : puchpa'Daq dog Say'moHlu'.
'ach jISIv : luSay'moHlu' 'e' lupoQ'a' dogmey ?
ben law', yotlhDaq HatlhDaq, dogmey law' ghajpu' vavwI'. yotlhvamDaq
reH tlhab dogmey. 'ej reH yavDaq Qot bIH.
meqvammo', not DISay'moHta'. qatlh DISay'nISmoH ? DaH DISay'moHchugh
vaj qaSDI' vagh tup lamqa' !
'ej maHvaD not jatlh Ha'DIbaH Qel, dogvam yISaymoH !
toH, ngoDvam vIHar : lam Hatlh Dabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' net pIH.
ngoDvammo' pe'vIl puchpa' dog 'elnISmoH pagh !
mop Hurgh
_______________________________________________
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 7/10/2016 5:42 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
On the other hand..
Perhaps, I'm approaching this wrong way ; I'm paying attention to the english translation of the words {Dab} and {'el}, without actually *feeling* their meaning.
As SuStel pointed out {Dab} means "inhabit" ; the "in/at", at its english translation, were put in an effort to provide for the reader a better understanding of its meaning.
Similarly the {'el} means "enter" and that's it. The "go in" was added in an effort to further explain its meaning.
In dark of the above, then we could indeed understand the {Hatlh luDabbogh Ha'DIbaHmey} and the {pa' vI'el}.
Now, as far as the {quSDaq jIba'} is concerned, we can understand why we don't use {quSDaq vIba'}, for the simple reason that "I sit on the chair" ; I don't "sit the chair".
Now you've got it. It's not important whether the English translation includes a locative sense; what matters is whether the Klingon has one. For this, either we have to rely on what Okrand has said about it or examples he's given us, or we have to infer this from the English translation. *ba'* /sit/ does not appear to contain a locative sense, based on both the English translation and the examples Okrand has given us. Sometimes the English translation given in the dictionary is not enough to discern the correct object of a verb, whether locative or not. *qIm* /pay attention/ is not listed as /pay attention to,/ so for years I argued that you couldn't say something like *waqwIj vIqImtaH*/I'm paying attention to my shoes./ Then we got an example of *qIm* with an object (I think it was *qIrq qun vIqImchoH* from the /Star Trek V/ notes <http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1999-12-holqed-08-4-b.txt&q=qIm>, and it showed up on the old MSN word list as /pay attention to/). We have a similar situation with the popular word *jeS*/participate,/ which, if we were to go only by the English translation, cannot take an object, but which, if we go by precedent, should be able to take the event in which you participate as the object. Okrand has never used this verb in a way that answers this question. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
since the {Dab} includes the "in/at" meaning,
Some verbs have a meaning which implies a location. Their object is typically interpreted as a place. That is not the same thing as saying that the verb includes the {-Daq} suffix. "Living in" is the action of {Dab}; being lived in is what happens to its object. You could redundantly say {juHDaq vIDab} "I inhabit it at my house", but I don't think {*vIba'} "I sit it" works. -- ghunchu'wI'
Am 10.07.2016 um 22:00 schrieb Alan Anderson:
{Dab}; being lived in is what happens to its object. You could redundantly say {juHDaq vIDab} "I inhabit it at my house",
I think that even being redundant here still is wrong. {juHlIjDaq nuq DaDab?}
but I don't think {*vIba'} "I sit it" works.
Me neither. If it would take an object, it would be {quS *vIba'}. But as we know that it's {quSDaq ba'lu'}, it seems clear that ba' does not take an object. See it as a clear locative: You can do many things on a chair: {quSDaq jIba'} {quSDaq jIQam} {quSDaq jIQong} {quSDaq jIyIt} {quSDaq jISop} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
thank you ghunchu'wI' and lieven ! On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 10.07.2016 um 22:00 schrieb Alan Anderson:
{Dab}; being lived in is what happens to its object. You could redundantly say {juHDaq vIDab} "I inhabit it at my house",
I think that even being redundant here still is wrong. {juHlIjDaq nuq DaDab?}
but I don't think {*vIba'} "I sit it" works.
Me neither. If it would take an object, it would be {quS *vIba'}. But as we know that it's {quSDaq ba'lu'}, it seems clear that ba' does not take an object.
See it as a clear locative: You can do many things on a chair: {quSDaq jIba'} {quSDaq jIQam} {quSDaq jIQong} {quSDaq jIyIt} {quSDaq jISop}
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel