I want to say "I come nearer to you". Which of the following is the correct way to say it ? qachol SoHDaq jIchol SoHDaq vIchol SoHDaq qachol And being on the subject.. Regardless of {chol}.. Is the word {SoHDaq} second person ? or is it third person ? ~ m. qunen'oS here ancient kitty..
On 6/13/2019 12:52 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I want to say "I come nearer to you". Which of the following is the correct way to say it ?
qachol SoHDaq jIchol SoHDaq vIchol SoHDaq qachol
And being on the subject..
Regardless of {chol}.. Is the word {SoHDaq} second person ? or is it third person ?
I believe the correct sentence is *SoHDaq jIchol. chol* means the subject gets closer to something. Adding *SoHDaq* means the place at which you're standing is where the action /come closer/ occurs. This parallels *SoHDaq Sum raS*/You are near the table./ The location that the nearness takes place is you. *SoHDaq* is in the second person. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
I want to say "I come nearer to you". Which of the following is the correct way to say it ? qachol SoHDaq jIchol SoHDaq vIchol SoHDaq qachol
I know of no canon examples of chol with overt pronominal prefixes; the only two instances I know of it in use, from TKD, would have a third-person object in any case and so they're not illuminating. Personally, I lean towards qachol in parallel with other verbs expressing motion, like ghoS, jaH, 'el, leng, etc. (which presumably would mean SoHDaq qachol would also be acceptable - though as Okrand also says regarding pa'Daq vI'el, probably overkill). With all due respect to SuStel, his suggested parallel with Sum or Hop doesn't hold water, because these verbs are canonically adjectival and so they can't take objects in any case: HIvje' Sum yItlhap (HolQeD 7:4), Daq HopHa'Daq qa'chaj nejlI' qotar qempa'QeH je (PB, paq'raD 9:1-3), Daq SumHa'vo' wab Huj Qoylu' (PB, paq'raD 1:13). I don't think there's any justification for treating chol the same way. QeS 'utlh
On 6/14/2019 3:52 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
With all due respect to SuStel, his suggested parallel with *Sum* or *Hop* doesn't hold water, because these verbs are canonically adjectival and so they can't take objects in any case:
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that we look at *Sum* and mimic its grammar. I've given the principle by which I think it works and pointing to *Sum* to illustrate something similar. The principle is this: *-Daq* tells you the location at which the verb occurs, not, in this case, the destination of the action. When we think of coming closer, we tend to think in terms of being the moving entity heading toward the destination. I'm suggesting that we may have that backwards: we should think in terms of being the stationary entity, watching the moving entity coming closer to us. Let's get away from /you/ and /me,/ as this may skew our perceptions. Let's talk about a ship getting closer to a planet. The moving entity is the ship, so it is the subject of *chol.* If I say *yuQDaq chol Duj,* we can interpret that in one of two ways. We can consider *yuQDaq* to be the destination — a reading I'm rejecting here — or we can consider *yuQDaq* the place at which *chol* is occurring. We're at the planet, watching the ship come closer to us. /At the planet, the ship comes closer./ The reason I bring up *Sum* is because it works much the same way. *yuQDaq Sum Duj*/The ship is near the planet; At the planet, the ship is nearby./ This has nothing to do with whether either verb can take an object; it's purely about the locative viewpoint of the sentence. The location of the action is not with the subject; it's with the locative. So we can do this with first- and second-person pronouns too. *SoHDaq jIchol*/I get closer to you./ The *SoHDaq* is not saying that I'm coming closer, heading to you/. /It's saying that from where you are, I'm coming closer. This is where the canonical use of *Sum* is useful, because we have *SoHDaq Sum raS,* where *SoHDaq* "throws the orientation away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener (marked, stated: "at you, where you are"). /From where you are, the table is nearby./*SoHDaq jIchol*/From where you are, I come closer./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIghItlhpu', jIjatlhpu':
With all due respect to SuStel, his suggested parallel with Sum or Hop doesn't hold water, because these verbs are canonically adjectival and so they can't take objects in any case:
mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that we look at Sum
and mimic its grammar. I've given the principle by which I think it works
and pointing to Sum to illustrate something similar.
I did misunderstand. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. taH:
The principle is this: -Daq tells you the location at which the verb occurs,
not, in this case, the destination of the action. When we think of coming
closer, we tend to think in terms of being the moving entity heading
toward the destination. I'm suggesting that we may have that backwards:
we should think in terms of being the stationary entity, watching the
moving entity coming closer to us.
When you say "we should think...", are you pondering, or prescribing? (poD latlh) The rest of your perspective makes good internal sense. I can't fault it. (On the other hand, I can't see there are fewer assumptions being made whether one treats chol like Sum, or like ghoS.) jatlhpu' charghwI', jatlh:
SuStel’s suggestion would work for either {Sum} or {ghoS}. Your suggestion works with {ghoS}, but not {Sum}.
I agree my suggestion doesn't work with Sum (though the nature of the verb precludes that anyway), but with respect, I'm not sure SuStel's suggestion does quite work for ghoS either, because of the dual manner in which X-Daq ghoS Y works depending on whether X-Daq triggers object-agreement. An objectless usage (like the one SuStel suggests for yuQDaq chol Duj) can only ever mean "the ship is going on the planet", and not "the ship is going to the planet", when applied to ghoS, though the distinction is only overt in the plural: yuQDaq lughoS Dujmey "the ships are going to the planet" (-Daq destination), yuQDaq ghoS Dujmey "the ships are going on the planet" (-Daq location). QeS 'utlh
Whenever I read threads like this one, there is one question coming to my mind. Why doesn't okrand clarify these things ? Is it so difficult ? All it takes, is for him to say "do this", and its over. What are we supposed to do ? Use the Force to decide ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 12:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Whenever I read threads like this one, there is one question coming to my mind.
Why doesn't okrand clarify these things ? Is it so difficult ? All it takes, is for him to say "do this", and its over.
SaD law' mu'mey tu'lu'mo' jay'.
What are we supposed to do ? Use the Force to decide ?
yIDoghHa''eghmoH. ngebba' "the Force". bIpaQtaHvIS, qeylIS qa' Dayu'nIS. -- De'vID
qeylIS vIyu'qangbej; Do'Ha', Ca'Non mu'mey bIHlaHbe' qeylIS mu'mey'e'.. ~ m. qunen'oS
On 6/17/2019 4:39 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
taH:
The principle is this: *-Daq* tells you the location at which the verb occurs,
not, in this case, the destination of the action. When we think of coming
closer, we tend to think in terms of being the moving entity heading
toward the destination. I'm suggesting that we may have that backwards:
we should think in terms of being the stationary entity, watching the
moving entity coming closer to us.
When you say "we should think...", are you pondering, or prescribing?
I am describing "the principle by which I think it works."
The rest of your perspective makes good internal sense. I can't fault it. (On the other hand, I can't see there are fewer assumptions being made whether one treats *chol* like *Sum*, or like *ghoS*.)
*ghoS* works the way it does because it is one of those verbs described in TKD that imparts an inherently locative sense to its object. We have no evidence that *chol* is one of those verbs, and the given translation does not suggest an object. My only assumption is that a verb is not an inherently locative verb unless we have a reason to think that it is.
jatlhpu' charghwI', jatlh:
SuStel’s suggestion would work for either {Sum} or {ghoS}. Your suggestion works with {ghoS}, but not {Sum}.
I agree my suggestion doesn't work with *Sum* (though the nature of the verb precludes that anyway), but with respect, I'm not sure SuStel's suggestion does quite work for *ghoS* either, because of the dual manner in which X-*Daq ghoS *Y works depending on whether X-*Daq* triggers object-agreement. An objectless usage (like the one SuStel suggests for *yuQDaq chol Duj*) can only ever mean "the ship is going _on_ the planet", and not "the ship is going _to_ the planet", when applied to *ghoS*, though the distinction is only overt in the plural: *yuQDaq lughoS Dujmey* "the ships are going to the planet" (-*Daq* destination), *yuQDaq ghoS Dujmey* "the ships are going on the planet" (-*Daq* location).
I'm not sure why everyone is trying to turn my suggestion into a general rule or apply it to other verbs. I only suggested something for the verb *chol,* and illustrated something similar, but not identical, in the verb *Sum.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I completely agree with you, IF {chol} works like {ghoS}. It probably does, but there’s no canon to back up that presumption. SuStel’s approach is conservative. I’m sure that his suggested grammar works. I think that your suggested grammar works as well. I think that both work, but if I had to put money on it, I’d go with SuStel, because there is no rule that a verb can use based on its meaning to make it behave grammatically like {ghoS}. Okrand (or Maltz) can arbitrarily declare a verb to work like {ghoS} or not. SuStel’s suggestion would work for either {Sum} or {ghoS}. Your suggestion works with {ghoS}, but not {Sum}. So, if you want to treat it like {ghoS}, I don’t think anyone would misunderstand you or give you TOO much sass in conversation or casual writing, but if you are writing something that might stick around for a while, such that you could be embarrassed by investing in an interpretation that ultimately is proven wrong, then SuStel’s approach is probably wiser. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 14, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
I want to say "I come nearer to you". Which of the following is the correct way to say it ? qachol SoHDaq jIchol SoHDaq vIchol SoHDaq qachol
I know of no canon examples of chol with overt pronominal prefixes; the only two instances I know of it in use, from TKD, would have a third-person object in any case and so they're not illuminating.
Personally, I lean towards qachol in parallel with other verbs expressing motion, like ghoS, jaH, 'el, leng, etc. (which presumably would mean SoHDaq qachol would also be acceptable - though as Okrand also says regarding pa'Daq vI'el, probably overkill). With all due respect to SuStel, his suggested parallel with Sum or Hop doesn't hold water, because these verbs are canonically adjectival and so they can't take objects in any case: HIvje' Sum yItlhap (HolQeD 7:4), Daq HopHa'Daq qa'chaj nejlI' qotar qempa'QeH je (PB, paq'raD 9:1-3), Daq SumHa'vo' wab Huj Qoylu' (PB, paq'raD 1:13). I don't think there's any justification for treating chol the same way.
QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ 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>
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 09:52, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
I want to say "I come nearer to you". Which of the following is the correct way to say it ? qachol SoHDaq jIchol SoHDaq vIchol SoHDaq qachol
I know of no canon examples of *chol* with overt pronominal prefixes; the only two instances I know of it in use, from TKD, would have a third-person object in any case and so they're not illuminating.
chovnatlhvam Daqellaw': {chollI'} "it is getting closer" "it is getting closer" ghItlhpu' Okrand. "it is getting closer to it" ghItlhbe'pu'. {nuv wejDIch} lo'be'pu'. {nuv paghDIch} lo'be'law'pu'. naQbe'law' mu'tlheghvam. poQHa'lu'chugh, {DoSDaq [it-none]chollI'} 'oSlaw'; {DoS [it-it]chollI'} 'oSbe'law'. taH TKD: --- tagh --- This word would be used for, i.e., a missile approaching a target, when it is known that the missile has been aimed at that target. If a missile is getting closer, but its intended destination is not known, {choltaH} (with {-taH} "continuous") would be more appropriate. --- rIn --- {choltaH} jatlhchugh vay', {DoSHeyDaq choltaH} 'oSlaw'. jatlhwI'Daq SumnISbe'law' DoSHey. -- De'vID
On Jun 17, 2019, at 06:34, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
{chollI'} "it is getting closer"
"it is getting closer" ghItlhpu' Okrand. "it is getting closer to it" ghItlhbe'pu'. {nuv wejDIch} lo'be'pu'. {nuv paghDIch} lo'be'law'pu'.
bIlugh, 'a pagh tob chovnatlh. mu'tlhegh 'aghlu'bogh neH tob. moHaq chIm lo'mo', chaq quqtaHvIS “it is getting closer to it” 'oSlaH je. DIvI' Hol g buSqu'nISlu'law': “go” 'oSmo' «jaH» 'ej “roam, travel, rove” 'oSmo' «leng». «nuv paghDIch» lo'laHbej wotmeyvam 'a «nuv wejDIch» lo'laH je net Sov. vaj TKDDaq “close in (to), get closer (to), come nearer (to)” tu'lu'chugh, vaj lughlaHbej «qachol». 'a “close in, get closer, come nearer” neH tu'lu'mo', mujbejbe' «qachol». DIch wIHutlh vaj maloylaH neH. chaq DIch ghaj Eric Andeen.
On 6/17/2019 7:34 AM, De'vID wrote:
{chollI'} "it is getting closer"
"it is getting closer" ghItlhpu' Okrand. "it is getting closer to it" ghItlhbe'pu'.
Irrelevant. The whole issue here is deixis, in which you don't have to overtly specify such things. He also didn't say /It is getting closer to us,/ which is clearly meant to be a way this sentence could be used, even if the /to us/ remains unstated. Okrand's translations are rarely so formulaic, especially all the way back to the carefree days of TKD. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel -
Will Martin