ck tnk je {mej} lo' vs qepHom 2019 {mej} De'
jatlh ck: ghorgh mamej? 'ej jatlh tnk: DaH jImej. 'a qaStaHvIS qepHom 2019, maghojpu': < Daq 'oH {mej} 'ovmay'e'. > vaj (qepHom 2019 De'mo'), {ghorgh *pI*/*re*/*wI*/DI*mej} 'oHnISpu' ck mu'tlhegh'e', 'ej {DaH *vI*/*qa*/*Sa*mej} ' oHnISpu' tnk mu'tlhegh'e'. ck tnk je {mej} lo' tlhochba' qepHom 2019 {mej} De'. ~ Qa'yIn
On 10/22/2020 8:46 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jatlh ck: ghorgh mamej?
'ej jatlh tnk: DaH jImej.
'a qaStaHvIS qepHom 2019, maghojpu': < Daq 'oH {mej} 'ovmay'e'. >
vaj (qepHom 2019 De'mo'), {ghorgh *pI*/*re*/*wI*/DI*mej} 'oHnISpu' ck mu'tlhegh'e', 'ej {DaH *vI*/*qa*/*Sa*mej} ' oHnISpu' tnk mu'tlhegh'e'.
ck tnk je {mej} lo' tlhochba' qepHom 2019 {mej} De'.
Taking a certain kind of object doesn't mean a verb HAS to have an object. It just means that an object is possible, and this is what it is. When you leave off an object where an object is possible, the object is interpreted as unknown or vague. "Thus, *jIyaj*/I understand/ can be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said." So it is with *mej.* If you have no object, the object is unknown or vague. *DaH jImej* doesn't specify the place you're leaving because it doesn't need to: context makes it clear that it refers to wherever you currently are. But you could, if you wanted to, be less vague: *DaH pa'vam vImej*/I will leave this room now./ P.S.: Don't say *'oHnISpu'.* You're not talking about a completed needing to be; you're talking about a past needing to be that is indistinct in its duration and ending. Say *'oHnIS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj, SuStel; 'a vay'mo' jImIS. yIlaD: bIQ'a' HeH wIjaH we go to the shore bIQ'a' HeHDaq majaH we go along the shore vaj.. bIQ'a' HeH wImej we leave the shore 'ej bIQ'a' HeHDaq maHtaHvIS, majatlhchugh < DaH mamej >, vaj bIQ'a' HeHDaq qaS "the leaving"; 'ach origin 'oHbe' bIQ'a' HeH'e'.. ~ Qa'yIn
On 10/22/2020 10:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
maj, SuStel; 'a vay'mo' jImIS. yIlaD:
bIQ'a' HeH wIjaH we go to the shore
bIQ'a' HeHDaq majaH we go along the shore
vaj..
bIQ'a' HeH wImej we leave the shore
'ej bIQ'a' HeHDaq maHtaHvIS, majatlhchugh < DaH mamej >, vaj bIQ'a' HeHDaq qaS "the leaving"; 'ach origin 'oHbe' bIQ'a' HeH'e'..
You're going to have to use English, because your problem is not clear to me. I have a feeling you're over-applying some rule. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
ej bIQ'a' HeHDaq maHtaHvIS, majatlhchugh < DaH mamej >, vaj bIQ'a' HeHDaq qaS "the leaving"; 'ach origin 'oHbe' bIQ'a' HeH'e'..
If while we're at the shore we say {DaH mamej}, then the "leaving" takes place at the shore, but the origin (that which is left behind) isn't the shore. The "leaving" takes place at the shore, but the shore isn't left behing. We're moving along the shore, from one point to another. ~ Qa'yIn
On 10/22/2020 10:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
ej bIQ'a' HeHDaq maHtaHvIS, majatlhchugh < DaH mamej >, vaj bIQ'a' HeHDaq qaS "the leaving"; 'ach origin 'oHbe' bIQ'a' HeH'e'..
If while we're at the shore we say {DaH mamej}, then the "leaving" takes place at the shore, but the origin (that which is left behind) isn't the shore.
The "leaving" takes place at the shore, but the shore isn't left behing. We're moving along the shore, from one point to another.
If you're walking along the shore, you're not leaving the shore, so you wouldn't say *bIQ'a' HeH wImej.* If you say *mamej,* then you're leaving /someplace,/ but you're not being specific about which place you're leaving (because it's obvious). If you wanted to be very specific, you could say *Daqvam wImej* or whatever, but you have to actually leave the place you say you're leaving for it to be correct. I still don't see your problem. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Words like {mej}, {Sum}, {Hop}, and other location-centric verbs, fall to the concept of deixis as the most generically accessible filler when other context is absent. Einstein suggests that there is no objective reality; that the entire Universe is always definable from the perspective of a single observer. When speaking, the speaker is that observer. So, when the verb suggests a referent location without explicitly providing one, the speaker is that location. {jImej} more explicitly means {naDev vImej}. The future me departs from the now me’s location, since the now me’s location is synonymous to “here”, and the future me’s location will be a different time referenced “here” with a new associated “now". Gotta love deixis. It’s a gem element of General Relativity. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 22, 2020, at 8:46 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jatlh ck: ghorgh mamej? 'ej jatlh tnk: DaH jImej.
'a qaStaHvIS qepHom 2019, maghojpu': < Daq 'oH {mej} 'ovmay'e'. >
vaj (qepHom 2019 De'mo'), {ghorgh *pI*/*re*/*wI*/DI*mej} 'oHnISpu' ck mu'tlhegh'e', 'ej {DaH *vI*/*qa*/*Sa*mej} ' oHnISpu' tnk mu'tlhegh'e'.
ck tnk je {mej} lo' tlhochba' qepHom 2019 {mej} De'.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin