Three questions about the *paq'batlh*
1. ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam (paq'yav 11, 10-12) Is it correct to use *-chugh neH* with the meaning *only if*? Obviously, it isn't the same as the normal meaning of *neH* with verbs (*just / merely*). And if it isn't correct, how can we render the meaning *only if*? 2. ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS naDevvo' chegh pagh (paq'raD Prologue, 22-24) In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./ And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./ The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq*), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something? 3. ghe’tor lojmIt lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’ chen wej tlheghmey (paq'raD 1, 25-27) Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)? Thank you for your help!
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:33 AM luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS naDevvo' chegh pagh
(paq'raD Prologue, 22-24)
In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./
And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./
The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something?
boQwI' can give a good basic explanation, but it can't account for every situation. (It's also not something one should cite as a source, so thank you for quoting its own citation of HolQeD.) *ghoS *has an underlying meaning something like *follow a course, move along a path*. Its object is a location or other identifier for the path. Sometimes that's the destination, sometimes it's the origin, and sometimes it's just a name for the path. So* 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS* means *follow the river of blood*, and in this case the preceding *ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq* is most reasonably interpreted as where the path leads (i.e. the destination). -- ghunchu'wI'
Thank you very much, ghunchu'wI', for your replyI supposed it was like you say, but I wasn't sure if the grammar works this way. May I ask your opinion about question number 1 (the way to say *only if* in Klingon?). I thank you for every help you can give me.
On 7/28/2023 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
1.
ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam
(paq'yav 11, 10-12)
Is it correct to use *-chugh neH* with the meaning *only if*? Obviously, it isn't the same as the normal meaning of *neH* with verbs (*just / merely*). And if it isn't correct, how can we render the meaning *only if*?
Looks like a sloppy translation to me. "If the Fek'lhr merely does not find that a person enters and/or leaves Gre'thor..." I can think of various other circuitous ways to say this "only if," none of which seem very good, to the point that I don't want to offer them as examples to emulate. Which is probably why the one Okrand used is also not very good.
2.
ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS naDevvo' chegh pagh
(paq'raD Prologue, 22-24)
In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./
Weeelllllll, not exactly. *ghoS* refers to following a course. You can follow a course toward someplace or follow a course away from someplace. It doesn't change its meaning depending on what kind of noun it's used with; any such noun just narrows down which part of the course you're talking about. *taw vIghoS*/I go along the road./ *vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS*/I go along the road toward the Great Hall./ *'angweDvo' taw vIghoS*/I go along the road from the museum./ *'angweDvo' vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS*/I go along the road from the museum to the Great Hall./
And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./
The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq*), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something?
This is poorly explained in boQwI'. Start with TKD section 3.3.5. There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as *ghoS* /approach, proceed./ The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs. If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong. So there are some verbs that have inherently locative meanings. Their objects indicate that location. *jaH* is one of those verbs. Its meaning includes a location that represents the destination of going. When you *jaH,* you *jaH*/to/ someplace. Any object you add to *jaH* represents that someplace. And if you want to put a *-Daq* on that someplace, that's fine and optional and only a little redundant. *jIjaH*/I go (to someplace)./ *vaS'a' vIjaH*/I go to the Great Hall/*.* *vaS'a'Daq vIjaH*/I go to the Great Hall./ There is no difference in meaning between the last two. Forget all that in boQwI' about the prefix indicating something. What the author is trying to do is show you how to distinguish between a locative noun indicating the destination and a locative noun indicating something else. It's not really about the prefix; it's about whether the noun is an object or not. Let me illustrate the ambiguity. *vaS'a'Daq vIjaH.* This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that *vaS'a'Daq* is the object, or does it mean *vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH,* where the pronoun had been elided? What would *vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH* mean? Well, *'oH* is the object of *jaH,* so it must be the destination. /I go to it.../ So then what is *vaS'a'Daq* doing? If it's not the destination, it falls back to all the other possible meanings of locative nouns. It probably means /I go to it in the Great Hall./ That is, I'm in the Great Hall, and I go to an "it" that is also in the Great Hall. If we specify what that "it" is, it's clearer: *vaS'a'Daq Hew vIjaH*/In the Great Hall, I go to the statue./ The action takes place IN the Great Hall TOWARD the statue. Here's where the verb prefix comes in. If I said *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* it's clear from the verb prefix *jI-* that *vaS'a'Daq* cannot be the object of *jaH:* the prefix *jI-* means /no object./ So the Great Hall cannot be the destination. Therefore, it must be where the going takes place. /In the Great Hall, I go (someplace)./ So in the sentence *ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq**'Iw bIQtIq ghoS,* we see exactly the same thing. The verb is *ghoS.* The object of *ghoS* is the course followed. The object of *ghoS* is *'Iw bIQtIq.* So *'Iw bIQtIq ghoS* must mean /He goes along the River of Blood./ And *ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq* must be a locative that is not the object (because *ghoS* already has an object), so it must be something other than the course followed. Here it means /to the great gates of Gre'thor,/ a destination. *ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS*/He goes along the River of Blood toward the great gates of Gre'thor./
3.
ghe’tor lojmIt lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’ chen wej tlheghmey
(paq'raD 1, 25-27)
Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)?
It means /three lines./ I'm guessing this is another sloppy translation. UNLESS the English is referring to lines three across and the Klingon is referring to three columns, which would amount to the same thing. I suppose it's /possible/ that *wej tlheghmey* could mean /lines of three:/ treating *wej* as a noun and treating the whole thing as a noun-noun construction, you could interpret it as having lines *(tlheghmey),* and those lines are the sorts of lines that are described with "three-ness." That seems like too much of a stretch to me, though. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:18 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2023 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
Let me illustrate the ambiguity. *vaS'a'Daq vIjaH.* This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that *vaS'a'Daq* is the object, or does it mean *vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH,* where the pronoun had been elided?
I had a chat with Dr. Okrand about this some years ago. This isn't actually ambiguous, because when the prefix can indicate an object, and there's a noun marked with {-Daq}, then (usually, generally, etc. - the usual qualifications) it is the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. This is actually implied by the examples in TKD but not explained clearly. {DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship." {pa'Daq yIjaH} "Go to the room!" These cannot mean "It is approaching something on the ship" and "Go to it in the room!" If you wanted to say those sentences, you'd have to explicitly add an {'oH} or something. 3.
ghe’tor lojmIt lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’ chen wej tlheghmey
(paq'raD 1, 25-27)
Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)?
It means *three lines.* I'm guessing this is another sloppy translation. UNLESS the English is referring to lines three across and the Klingon is referring to three columns, which would amount to the same thing.
Yes, that was the idea. The English and Klingon are different ways of describing the same thing. There are a number of places where the English and Klingon describe the same thing differently, because translating things more literally would've violated metrical or space or alignment constraints or something. We considered switching {tlhegh} for {lanSoy} here, but didn't because it wasn't necessary as it would've still had the same meaning. -- De'vID
I’d just like to speak up for the commonness of ambiguity in language, be it English, Klingon, or whatever. “Lines of three” is itself, in English, ambiguous. The common interpretation might be an unmentioned number of lines, each consisting of three participants, but it can very well mean three lines of an unmentioned number of participants, particularly in the context of ancient, formal, written speech, which is pretty much what we’re dealing with here in the Klingon canon, so the English translations might tend to lean toward the stilted, formal, grandiose, barely modern English. “And the army formed lines of three to receive uniforms: A line of The Tall. A line of The Medium. A line of The Short.” We tend to question whether these borderline poetry, revealed ancient Klingon writings mean exactly what the English means, and we tend to forget that we might not accurately understand what the English means. I genuinely wish we had more Klingon canon representing common, modern speech instead of a lot of things that can get away with “poetry doesn’t always follow the rules” or “ancient dialect” or other dodges from the responsibility of writing well-formed Klingon sentences as guidance for communicating in the language. But, hey. First World Problems. We have to speak Klingon based on ancient canon… like a neanderthal. [brush, brush, brush… sigh… support elbow with other hand… brush, brush, brush] pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Aug 1, 2023, at 8:45 AM, De'vID via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:18 PM SuStel via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>> wrote:
On 7/28/2023 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol wrote: Let me illustrate the ambiguity. vaS'a'Daq vIjaH. This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that vaS'a'Daq is the object, or does it mean vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH, where the pronoun had been elided?
I had a chat with Dr. Okrand about this some years ago. This isn't actually ambiguous, because when the prefix can indicate an object, and there's a noun marked with {-Daq}, then (usually, generally, etc. - the usual qualifications) it is the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. This is actually implied by the examples in TKD but not explained clearly.
{DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship." {pa'Daq yIjaH} "Go to the room!"
These cannot mean "It is approaching something on the ship" and "Go to it in the room!" If you wanted to say those sentences, you'd have to explicitly add an {'oH} or something.
3.
ghe’tor lojmIt lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’ chen wej tlheghmey
(paq'raD 1, 25-27)
Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)? It means three lines. I'm guessing this is another sloppy translation. UNLESS the English is referring to lines three across and the Klingon is referring to three columns, which would amount to the same thing.
Yes, that was the idea. The English and Klingon are different ways of describing the same thing. There are a number of places where the English and Klingon describe the same thing differently, because translating things more literally would've violated metrical or space or alignment constraints or something. We considered switching {tlhegh} for {lanSoy} here, but didn't because it wasn't necessary as it would've still had the same meaning.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thank you very much, SuStel, De'vID and charghwI' for your answers! SuStel:
taw vIghoS I go along the road.
vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS I go along the road toward the Great Hall.
De'vID:
Let me illustrate the ambiguity. vaS'a'Daq vIjaH. This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that vaS'a'Daq is the object, or does it mean vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH, where the pronoun had been elided?
I had a chat with Dr. Okrand about this some years ago. This isn't actually ambiguous, because when the prefix can indicate an object, and there's a noun marked with {-Daq}, then (usually, generally, etc. - the usual qualifications) it is the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. This is actually implied by the examples in TKD but not explained clearly.
{DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship." {pa'Daq yIjaH} "Go to the room!" These cannot mean "It is approaching something on the ship" and "Go to it in the room!" If you wanted to say those sentences, you'd have to explicitly add an {'oH} or something.
I have some more questions about this: 1. *vengDaq taw vIghoS* would be however (without further context) ambiguous, right? It could mean: *I go along the road toward the city* or *I go along the road in the city*. 2. Is it allowed to put also a *-Daq* in the object when we have another noun with *-Daq*?: *vengDaq tawDaq vIghoS*. 3. De'vID says that when the prefix *can* indicate an object, and we have a noun with *-Daq*, this noun is (usually) the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. Couldn't these both examples have the following meanings too?: *DujDaq ghoStaH* - It is approaching on the ship. *pa'Daq yIjaH* - Go in the room! *DujDaq vIghoStaH* would be clear (*I'm approaching toward the ship*), because *vI-* indicate an object, but in the examples above the prefixes *could* also indicate no object. 4. How can I distinguish between *I go along the road* and *I approach toward the road*? Following SuStel's explanation, and supposing I've understood it right, I would say *taw vIghoS* could only mean *I go along the road*, *tawDaq vIghoS* would have two meanings: *I go along the road* with a redundant *-Daq* or *I go along (something) toward the road* with an elided pronoun. But with De'vID's explanation I'm not sure any more. charghwI':
We tend to question whether these borderline poetry, revealed ancient Klingon writings mean exactly what the English means, and we tend to forget that we might not accurately understand what the English means.
I'm often not very sure if I understand what the English means :-)
{ghoS} is a special word. It means that you are following a path which is identified by the object of {ghoS}. If I’m traveling along Richmond Road, I {ghoS} Richmond road. It’s called Richmond Road because people around here commonly use it to go to Richmond, but if I’m going to a location half way between here and Richmond, I’m still {ghoS}ing Richmond Road. Also, when I return home from Richmond, I {ghoS} Richmond Road. It doesn’t matter which direction I’m traveling on Richmond Road. Either way, I {ghoS} Richmond Road. This is why MOST OF THE TIME MOST PEOPLE will NOT put {-Daq} on Richmond to say that they are {ghoS}ing Richmond Road. It’s not outright wrong to use {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS}, but it’s similar to putting a plural suffix on a noun with a number in front of it that makes it obvious that the noun is plural. It’s not wrong. It’s very uncommon. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” The most common use of nouns with {-Daq} is to tell you where the action of the verb is happening. It’s context for the sentence. {ghoS} is an action that also has a context independent of its object. You can be in a car on Richmond Road, or you can be in Louisa on Richmond Road. {ghoS} can happen in the car, and it can happen in Louisa, but it’s direct object tells you that it’s happening along Richmond Road. {-vo’} is similar to {-Daq} in terms of providing context, except that it gives you a direction, not a location. Many people misunderstand {-vo’} and {-Daq} and think they are both directions; one is from and the other is towards, but these suffixes are not really opposites because {-Daq} is not a direction. It’s a location. {-vo’} is a direction, not a location. We like to think in opposites. Someone says, “Hot”, you think “Cold”. Someone says “North”, you think “South” before you think “East” or “West”. So, you see {-vo’} and you reevaluate {-Daq} and think these are opposites. They are not. {vengDaq taw vIghoS} means “I’m traveling along a road in the city.” It does not mean “I’m traveling along a road toward the city.” “Toward the city” is a direction, not a location. If you want to indicate that you are going toward the city, you are using the wrong verb. {taw vIghoS. veng vIjaH}. You can want to accomplish this specific meaning with one verb, but, hey, I want an airplane. Specifically, I want a Shark. I also want a pilot’s licence, my own airport and a hangar. I can’t get what I want, and neither can you. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Aug 1, 2023, at 4:44 PM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
Thank you very much, SuStel, De'vID and charghwI' for your answers!
SuStel:
taw vIghoS I go along the road.
vaS'a'Daq taw vIghoS I go along the road toward the Great Hall.
De'vID:
Let me illustrate the ambiguity. vaS'a'Daq vIjaH. This is actually ambiguous. Does it mean that vaS'a'Daq is the object, or does it mean vaS'a'Daq 'oH vIjaH, where the pronoun had been elided?
I had a chat with Dr. Okrand about this some years ago. This isn't actually ambiguous, because when the prefix can indicate an object, and there's a noun marked with {-Daq}, then (usually, generally, etc. - the usual qualifications) it is the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. This is actually implied by the examples in TKD but not explained clearly.
{DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship." {pa'Daq yIjaH} "Go to the room!"
These cannot mean "It is approaching something on the ship" and "Go to it in the room!" If you wanted to say those sentences, you'd have to explicitly add an {'oH} or something.
I have some more questions about this:
1. *vengDaq taw vIghoS* would be however (without further context) ambiguous, right? It could mean: *I go along the road toward the city* or *I go along the road in the city*.
2. Is it allowed to put also a *-Daq* in the object when we have another noun with *-Daq*?: *vengDaq tawDaq vIghoS*.
3. De'vID says that when the prefix *can* indicate an object, and we have a noun with *-Daq*, this noun is (usually) the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. Couldn't these both examples have the following meanings too?:
*DujDaq ghoStaH* - It is approaching on the ship. *pa'Daq yIjaH* - Go in the room!
*DujDaq vIghoStaH* would be clear (*I'm approaching toward the ship*), because *vI-* indicate an object, but in the examples above the prefixes *could* also indicate no object.
4. How can I distinguish between *I go along the road* and *I approach toward the road*? Following SuStel's explanation, and supposing I've understood it right, I would say *taw vIghoS* could only mean *I go along the road*, *tawDaq vIghoS* would have two meanings: *I go along the road* with a redundant *-Daq* or *I go along (something) toward the road* with an elided pronoun. But with De'vID's explanation I'm not sure any more.
charghwI':
We tend to question whether these borderline poetry, revealed ancient Klingon writings mean exactly what the English means, and we tend to forget that we might not accurately understand what the English means.
I'm often not very sure if I understand what the English means :-) _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:45 PM luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
I have some more questions about this:
1. *vengDaq taw vIghoS* would be however (without further context) ambiguous, right? It could mean: *I go along the road toward the city* or *I go along the road in the city*.
I believe so. Klingon only has one locative suffix which covers both "to" and "in". If these meanings are both possible, they'd have to be differentiated in some way. 2. Is it allowed to put also a *-Daq* in the object when we have another
noun with *-Daq*?: *vengDaq tawDaq vIghoS*.
Yes. There is a canon example of this on SkyBox card 99: {qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH} "on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe"
3. De'vID says that when the prefix *can* indicate an object, and we have a noun with *-Daq*, this noun is (usually) the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. Couldn't these both examples have the following meanings too?:
*DujDaq ghoStaH* - It is approaching on the ship. *pa'Daq yIjaH* - Go in the room!
I was told specifically that those sentences (normally) only have the meanings they are listed with in TKD, i.e., the reason that TKD does not note those sentences as being ambiguous is because they are not ambiguous, even though this isn't explained. (There was one more sentence, {jolpa'Daq yIjaH}, to which the same comment applies, but it's basically redundant with {pa'Daq yIjaH} as an example.) Of course, Dr. Okrand always qualifies his statements with "generally", "normally", and so on to leave some wiggle room. I imagine that it's possible for those sentences to have the meanings you wrote above, if there is some very strong established context, but let's say that the sentences in TKD almost always have the meanings given in TKD. Those are the normal interpretations of those sentences.
*DujDaq vIghoStaH* would be clear (*I'm approaching toward the ship*), because *vI-* indicate an object, but in the examples above the prefixes *could* also indicate no object.
Maybe I didn't explain this clearly, but the rule (as I understood it) is that if you have a prefix like the null prefix, where it could mean either it-none or it-it, and there's a noun with {-Daq} but no other noun in the object position, then the usual way to understand the sentence is that the prefix is being used with the it-it meaning and the {-Daq} is on the object noun. If you have a prefix that indicates an object, then the noun with {-Daq} is the object if there's no other noun in the object position.
4. How can I distinguish between *I go along the road* and *I approach toward the road*? Following SuStel's explanation, and supposing I've understood it right, I would say *taw vIghoS* could only mean *I go along the road*, *tawDaq vIghoS* would have two meanings: *I go along the road* with a redundant *-Daq* or *I go along (something) toward the road* with an elided pronoun. But with De'vID's explanation I'm not sure any more.
{taw vIghoS} or {tawDaq vIghoS} "I go along the road" {taw vIchol} or {tawDaq vIchol} "I go towards the road" {tawDaq 'oH vIghoS} "I proceed along it (presumably a course) on/to/at/in the road" (the specific relation to the road is established by context or something else) {taw vIcholmeH 'oH vIghoS} "I proceed along it towards the road" -- De'vID
On 8/1/2023 4:44 PM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol wrote:
1. *vengDaq taw vIghoS* would be however (without further context) ambiguous, right? It could mean: *I go along the road toward the city* or *I go along the road in the city*.
This is not ambiguous in Klingon. *-Daq* simply has a larger scope of meaning than the various English prepositions that it corresponds to. This is true of any use of the locative. *yuQDaq jIHtaH.* This could mean I am /on/ the planet, and this is the translation one would commonly expect, but it could also mean I am /in/ the planet or /by/ the planet. In fact, it means all of those at once; it means /I am locative-planet./
4. How can I distinguish between *I go along the road* and *I approach toward the road*? Following SuStel's explanation, and supposing I've understood it right, I would say *taw vIghoS* could only mean *I go along the road*, *tawDaq vIghoS* would have two meanings: *I go along the road* with a redundant *-Daq* or *I go along (something) toward the road* with an elided pronoun. But with De'vID's explanation I'm not sure any more.
Using *ghoS?* It will always be ambiguous without further context. *taw vIghoS* can mean /I go along the road, /but it could also mean /I go to the road,/ where the road is simply the name of the destination, outlining your course to the road. It's not about whether or not you use *-Daq.* Instead of the course being the road's length, the course is that course which leads to the road. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m not sure you ever got an answer to question 1. Just in case you didn’t… The definitions we’ve been given tell us that {neH} used as an adverb and not as the verb for “want”, follows what it modifies, and it can follow a noun or a verb. It describes exclusivity for the noun, but it trivializes the verb. You didn’t include the English translation of
ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam
(paq'yav 11, 10-12)
Given the definition of {neH} as an adverb, I’d have translated it as “If the veqlargh merely doesn’t discover that a person enters and/or leaves ghe’tor, then this person can return from ghe’tor.” If the given English translation says “only if”, then either this is new evidence of a broader meaning of {neH} to include “only” as in “exclusively” in addition to meaning “trivially” for verbs, or in writing the canon example, someone looked up {neH} and saw “only” and mindlessly chose to use it this way. He goofed, and we’re stuck with it. But since canon is always right, you are free to use it this way, and some people might argue with you. Or, if you wanted to dodge the whole issue, just use logic to recast it in a less controversial wording. … ‘e’ tu’chugh veqlargh ghe’torvo’ cheghlaHbe’ nuvvam. That means exactly the same thing, while avoiding a controversial use of {neH} as an adverb applied to a verb, and it’s stunningly easy to do. But hey, maybe you LIKE conflict. Nobody will stop you from using {x-chugh neH} to mean “only if”. Your spell checker may give you some grief, but when you write in Klingon, you fight THAT all the time. As for all things {-Daq} it might help to think of a {veng} as a place with buildings and people, but {vengDaq} doesn’t have any buildings or people, because it is merely the location of the city. A {bIQtIq} has water. {bIQtIqDaq} has no water. It’s just the location of the water. If you have a verb that uses a location as its object, then {veng jaH} is going toward the city, regardless of whether it has people and buildings in it. You are going to the place. You are also going to the location of the place. The latter is somewhat redundant and even odd, but it’s not wrong. If you bomb a city, you bomb the people and the buildings, not just the location. There are so many tools for expressing things in Klingon. If your goal is to use it like a language, your focus is on having something to express and expressing it, rather than on taking one Klingon grammatical construction and using it every way it could possibly be used. Finding the limits of the grammar is not the same thing as learning how to use the language well. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jul 28, 2023, at 10:33 AM, luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
1.
ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH 'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam
(paq'yav 11, 10-12)
Is it correct to use *-chugh neH* with the meaning *only if*? Obviously, it isn't the same as the normal meaning of *neH* with verbs (*just / merely*). And if it isn't correct, how can we render the meaning *only if*?
2.
ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq 'Iw bIQtIq ghoS naDevvo' chegh pagh
(paq'raD Prologue, 22-24)
In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./
And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./
The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq*), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something?
3.
ghe’tor lojmIt lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’ chen wej tlheghmey
(paq'raD 1, 25-27)
Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)?
Thank you for your help! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thank you again, charghwI', De'vID and SuStel for your clarifications! I begin to understand *ghoS* better. De'vID:
3. De'vID says that when the prefix *can* indicate an object, and we have a noun with *-Daq*, this noun is (usually) the object unless there's another noun or a pronoun. Couldn't these both examples have the following meanings too?: *DujDaq ghoStaH* - It is approaching on the ship. *pa'Daq yIjaH* - Go in the room! (...) Of course, Dr. Okrand always qualifies his statements with "generally", "normally", and so on to leave some wiggle room. I imagine that it's possible for those sentences to have the meanings you wrote above, if there is some very strong established context, but let's say that the sentences in TKD almost always have the meanings given in TKD. Those are the normal interpretations of those sentences.
So a way of forcing the meaning *on the ship* and *in the room* could be adding a pronoun or a noun?: *DujDaq 'oH ghoStaH* - It is approaching it on the ship. *pa'Daq vogh yIjaH* - Go somewhere in the room! charghwI':
I’m not sure you ever got an answer to question 1. Just in case you didn’t… The definitions we’ve been given tell us that {neH} used as an adverb and not as the verb for “want”, follows what it modifies, and it can follow a noun or a verb. It describes exclusivity for the noun, but it trivializes the verb. You didn’t include the English translation of
SuStel has also answered this question, but thank you for taking the time to reply too. The English text says: One can only return from this Underworld, If Fek’lhr does not notice one Entering or leaving Gre’thor.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:35 PM luis.chaparro--- via tlhIngan-Hol < tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org> wrote:
So a way of forcing the meaning *on the ship* and *in the room* could be adding a pronoun or a noun?:
*DujDaq 'oH ghoStaH* - It is approaching it on the ship. *pa'Daq vogh yIjaH* - Go somewhere in the room!
Yes. In these cases, there's an explicit (direct) object, so the noun with {-Daq} is something else. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin