I wouldn’t make assumptions about the location/object of {tlheD} based on {mev}. The nuanced difference between the verbs might also have differences in terms of the presence or absence of {-vo’}. Meanwhile, if you want to use {tlheD} you have to arbitrarily decide whether to use {-vo’} or not, and you could use this as a guideline, since it is a decision you are forced to make without other guidance. All I’m saying is that you can definitely take this as advice on whether to use a {-vo’} or not with the noun in front of {tlheD}. You just can’t know that you are right until we’re told so. It’s reasonable to write some original Klingon sentences with {tlheD} and place or omit {-vo’} to the best guess you can make. It’s less reasonable to notate your personal dictionary or grammar rules to claim that this is officially true. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On May 24, 2022, at 5:19 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Couldn't all this apply for {tlhej} too?

vaS'a' tlheD HoD the captain leaves the great hall (the great hall isn't the starting point)

vaS'a'vo' tlheD HoD the captain leaves from the great hall (the great hall is the starting point)

Or do the words of 'oqranD apply only to {mej}?

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

The full sentence in case it hasn’t been given yet: ghe'tor Da'elta' 'ej lojmItmeyvo' Damejta' 'ach bIrIQbe'mo' SoH neH Since you are the only one who ever entered Gre'thor, and left the gates unharmed (PB) There’s another sentence in paq’batlh contrasting {‘el} with {mej} without {-vo’}: vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH ghe'tor Da'elmo' 'ej Damejmo' QeHchoH qa'pu' vaj lubIjlu' They will pay for the anger you caused by entering and leaving Gre'thor in search of your kin. (PB) Note the poetic parallelism in both: {Da’elta’ ‘ej … Damejta’} and {Da’elmo’ ‘ej Damejmo’}. (Interesting but irrelevant to the issue of whether or not to add {-vo’}.) -- Voragh _________________________________________________ From: D qunen'oS Also, reading the original post, I noticed this Ca'Non sentence: {lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’} This sentence shows that a {-vo'}ed noun *can* be the object of a verb, something which -for reasons I don't know- I was under the impression that wasn't possible. Perhaps because I could never come up with an example where it would be necessary for a {-vo'}ed noun to be the object of a verb. Who knows? Go figure. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!8y3YkHE8UDKU5PpVvBLn0N2Z1NfL2As6Bz5vy5DGIWFQqPTvJNT-2Q1wzeYWEhWiwui5Wjg7uolJnaBFOiA$> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

On 5/25/2022 10:18 AM, Will Martin wrote:

I noticed the same thing. It is strange to have the prefix suggest an object that has a Type 5 suffix (except {-‘e’} because, hey, {-'e’} is soooo exceptional). It’s more typical to say {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} or {bIQtIq vIghoS} than {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS}.

The object of the verb *ghoS* is the course being followed, possibly a course identified by its destination. That is, its object is already locative anyway, so there is no reason one /couldn't/ add a *-Daq* to it. As TKD says, doing this is a little redundant, but not wrong. When a verb makes its object locative, adding the locative suffix doesn't change anything at all about the sentence. And by the way, the gloss of *ghoS* also includes "go away from." I have no doubt that you could say things like *bIQtIqvo' vIghoS*/I go away from the river./ *ghoS* can impart an ablative meaning to its object instead of a locative meaning, so we should not be surprised if adding the ablative suffix to the object has no effect on the sentence besides being redundant. This idea that objects should never have type 5 suffixes on them except for *-'e'* because it's exceptional and except for *-Daq* on certain verbs because the verbs are exceptional is a kludge made up by us, not Okrand. A more accurate "rule" would be that type 5 noun suffixes can go on any subject or object provided the verb supports locative/ablative/benefactive/causative/focus nouns in those positions. The role of focus is universal. A bunch of verbs support a locative object. A couple appear to support an ablative object. We know of none that support benefactive or causative objects or or any sort of subject other than a focus noun. The rule is not that subjects and objects cannot take type 5 suffixes; the rule is that nouns that aren't subject or objects come before the object and usually have type 5 suffixes. (Examples of nouns that aren't subject or object and don't have type 5 suffixes are time expressions.) There is no prohibition on putting type 5'd nouns on subjects or objects, and we're explicitly given instances where *-Daq* (and now *-vo'*) go on objects.

Sure, you can do it. It’s just weird, even if Okrand does it.

Only if you presume a rule that TKD doesn't actually state. This is one of those "we made ourselves think this way" things.

One might expect a parallel between the use of {-Daq} with its special verbs and {-vo’} with its special verbs.

The verbs are only special in that their objects are locations. You *ghoS* a location because *ghoS* is all about acting upon a location, so it's really not surprising when you put the location marker on the location you *ghoS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/26/2022 11:07 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:

SuStel:

And by the way, the gloss of*ghoS*also includes "go away from." I have no doubt that you could say things like*bIQtIqvo' vIghoS*/I go away from the river./*ghoS*can impart an ablative meaning to its object instead of a locative meaning, so we should not be surprised if adding the ablative suffix to the object has no effect on the sentence besides being redundant.

​ Is there evidence that *ghoS* can add the ablative meaning to its object? *ghoS* is used tens of times in canon and every time its object doesn't have any type-5 suffix it means "go (to)".

Perhaps you missed the qualifiers I sprinkled in liberally to avoid someone challenging me to prove what I was saying. "I have no doubt." "We should not be surprised if."

When *ghoS* is used to mean "go away from", it has *-vo'*:

*chaH neH wovmoHlu'be' * *chaH 'emvo' ghoS * *SuvwI'pu' mangghom **yoH*

/The sun shone not on them only, / /Behind them came / /An army of brave warriors. /

(paq'batlh)

I believe that every time *ghoS* is used to mean "go away from," it is ambiguous whether the ablative is the object or not. And even if it's not, that just goes along with all those times *jaH* fails to make its locative destination the object.

Based on the evidence we have I don't think we can say that a nominative object could have an ablative meaning. I think the definition just means that in some contexts (ie. when *-vo'* is used), the verb can be translated with "go away from".

I didn't say the evidence shows what I said. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case. The casualness with which *mej* can take a *-vo'* noun as its object doesn't strike me as *mej* being exceptional; it strikes me as a special connotation of something that might not be terribly remarkable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:15 AM D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, reading the original post, I noticed this Ca'Non sentence:

{lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’}

This sentence shows that a {-vo'}ed noun *can* be the object of a verb, something which -for reasons I don't know- I was under the impression that wasn't possible. Perhaps because I could never come up with an example where it would be necessary for a {-vo'}ed noun to be the object of a verb. Who knows? Go figure.

The object of {Damejta'} in this sentence is {ghe'tor}. Don't try to read so much into something when you aren't paying attention to the context. -- ghunchu'wI'

ghunchu'wI':

The object of {Damejta'} in this sentence is {ghe'tor}. Don't try to read so much into something when you aren't paying attention to the context.

Ok, you got me. Indeed, I payed no attention to the context, because Klingon crap sickens me. As simple as that. I just couldn't care less about what qeylIS did or didn't do, about the gates of ghe''or, about molor, or anything related. As far as I'm concerned, the questions after all this are simply these two: 1. If we want to talk about leaving a place which is considered to be a starting point, then does the starting point which has been marked by the {-vo'} need to be the object of the verb or not? Do we say {juHvo' vImejpu'} or {juHvo' jImejpu'}? 2. Does the info which regards {mej} and its' use with {-vo'} apply for {tlhej} as well? As far as the first question goes, I think that since 'oqranD has already said that the place one's leaving or departing from is the object, and then elaborated on which is the case where we'd use {-vo'} as well, then putting two and two together, the conclusion must be that the {-vo}'ed noun must still be the object. In the message shared by De'vID, 'oqranD didn't change anything he previously had said; he just added something new. Personally, I'd prefer it if this wasn't the case, and we just needed to write {juHvo' jImejpu'}, for the simple reason that that's how we do it in Greek. But -speaking for myself- I think that if I did it that way, I'd break the rule about the place one's leaving or departing from needing to be the object. Thinking about the second question, I think that all this goes for {tlheD} as well, for the simple reason that 'oqranD wrote "if the focus is on starting from a certain place towards a certain path or goal, {-vo’} makes that clear". So -as we say on Vulcan- logic dictates that since one can use {tlheD} too and still be able to focus on "starting from a certain place", then someone can/must use the {-vo'} as in the case of {mej}. Of course, all this is just my opinion, and as usual we need to break out the ouija board to find out what it is that 'oqranD actually means/wants/instructs. And on second thought ouija board isn't enough on its' own; apparently what is needed is a whole divination ritual. Also, I'd like to add that 'oqranD has the habit of using examples where the verb prefixes don't make clear how things work. Perhaps someone should bring to his attention that we'd be saved much trouble speculating, if he avoided doing that. But on the other hand, how would we then practice our divination skills? Yeah, that must be it.. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ