Suppose I'm in one room, gowron is at another, and I want to say "I go to gowron". Until some time ago, I would have said {ghawran vIjaH}, but recently I started wondering whether {jaH} can indeed take a person as an object. I'm asking, because writing {ghawran vIjaH} gives me the impression that at the end of the {jaH}ing, I'll be actually hugging gowron, standing on him or something similar. If you think about it, whenever you go to a person you are actually approaching him, and at the end of the approaching, the thing which has actually taken place, is that the initial distance has been considerably decreased. But you don't actually go *to* him/her, in the same way you'd go to a place, where you end up standing in/on that place. So, why not say instead {ghawran vIchol} or {ghawran vIghoS} ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 5/25/2020 8:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I'm in one room, gowron is at another, and I want to say "I go to gowron".
Until some time ago, I would have said {ghawran vIjaH}, but recently I started wondering whether {jaH} can indeed take a person as an object.
I'm asking, because writing {ghawran vIjaH} gives me the impression that at the end of the {jaH}ing, I'll be actually hugging gowron, standing on him or something similar.
*jaH* takes the destination as its object. If *ghawran* is your destination, then *ghawran* is the object. His being a destination doesn't imply that you end up standing on top of him.
If you think about it, whenever you go to a person you are actually approaching him, and at the end of the approaching, the thing which has actually taken place, is that the initial distance has been considerably decreased.
But you don't actually go *to* him/her, in the same way you'd go to a place, where you end up standing in/on that place.
You're taking things far too literally. The language doesn't work like that.
So, why not say instead {ghawran vIchol} or {ghawran vIghoS} ?
You can say those things. *ghawran vIchol* doesn't imply that *ghawran* is your destination, just that the distance between you is lessened. *ghawran vIghoS* implies that *ghawran,* as a location, defines your course, and most of the time that'll be your destination, but it's not required. (For example, consider the classic problem of the runaway train and the railroad switch. If I take the left fork, I will run over Gowron. If I take the right fork, I will run over fifty innocent people. To minimize the deaths, I turn left. *ghawran vIghoS,* but Gowron isn't my destination.) When you use language, there isn't one precise formulation that correctly defines the given situation. Language is about expression, and you can express different things about any situation. You choose the words that best express what it is about a situation you want to express. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
jaH takes the destination as its object. If ghawran is your destination, then ghawran is the object.
ok, I understand this, thanks. But there's something I'm wondering.. Suppose I'm at one room and gowron is at another. I want to say to gowron "come to me". Wouldn't it be strange to say {HIjaH} "go to me" ? In this case shouldn't I say {HIchol} or {HIghoS} ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 5/26/2020 8:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I'm at one room and gowron is at another. I want to say to gowron "come to me". Wouldn't it be strange to say {HIjaH} "go to me" ? In this case shouldn't I say {HIchol} or {HIghoS} ?
In English it's strange because we have the different words /go/ and /come,/ which imply motion away from (or unrelated to) and toward the speaker. We don't have this split in Klingon, and we have little data about whether it would be strange to Klingons. We know that *HIghoS* has been used a couple of times, but *HIjaH* and *HIchol* have not. (I don't think *HIchol* would be used for this anyway, since the point isn't to make your distance to me less but to come to the same room as me.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to offer another option, if you are bothered by {HIghoS}, just say {naDev yIghoS}. There’s not much difference between using “me” as a destination vs. using “my location” as a destination, and “here” always means either “my destination” or the extremely-close-to-my-location-that-I-am-visually-indicating, since if it’s not near me, I’d say, “there” instead of “here”; {pa’} instead of {naDev}. I’m not bothered by {HIghoS}, but {naDev yIghoS} works even less controversially. Not much controversy, either way. Just know that you have options. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 26, 2020, at 8:56 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/26/2020 8:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Suppose I'm at one room and gowron is at another. I want to say to gowron "come to me". Wouldn't it be strange to say {HIjaH} "go to me" ? In this case shouldn't I say {HIchol} or {HIghoS} ? In English it's strange because we have the different words go and come, which imply motion away from (or unrelated to) and toward the speaker. We don't have this split in Klingon, and we have little data about whether it would be strange to Klingons. We know that HIghoS has been used a couple of times, but HIjaH and HIchol have not. (I don't think HIchol would be used for this anyway, since the point isn't to make your distance to me less but to come to the same room as me.)
-- 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
On 5/26/2020 11:48 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Just to offer another option, if you are bothered by {HIghoS}, just say {naDev yIghoS}.
Nobody's bothered by *HIghoS.* He's wondering whether one might use *jaH* instead of *ghoS,* and in what circumstances. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qatlho’. You’ve convinced me that there’s less of a difference between {jaH} and {ghoS} than I previously had thought. The primary difference, as I still understand it, is that the object of {jaH} (if one is given) is the destination, and nothing but the destination, while the object of {ghoS} can be any landmark that might be used to identify the path one is moving along. Most commonly, that would be the destination, but {ghoS} has more to do with the path followed than it does with getting to a specific place. It’s one of those interesting Klingon words that means something that doesn’t precisely and interchangeably map to a specific English verb. It means that you are in motion along a specific, intentional path or course. {jaH} is a somewhat more common “go, go to”. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 26, 2020, at 11:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/26/2020 11:48 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Just to offer another option, if you are bothered by {HIghoS}, just say {naDev yIghoS}. Nobody's bothered by HIghoS. He's wondering whether one might use jaH instead of ghoS, and in what circumstances.
-- 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
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin