I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people. I have two options: Daqvamvo' yIghoS or Daqvammo' peghoS Which is the right one ? If someone knows, please tell me, but don't start writing crap like "don't use {ghoS}", in order to avoid answering the actual question. ~ m. qunen'oS
On 6/13/2019 9:44 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people. I have two options:
Daqvamvo' yIghoS or Daqvammo' peghoS
Which is the right one ?
If someone knows, please tell me, but don't start writing crap like "don't use {ghoS}", in order to avoid answering the actual question.
The object of *ghoS* is a locative, so it probably can't take an ablative as its object. Therefore the correct sentence would be *Daqvamvo' peghoS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people. I have two options: Daqvamvo' yIghoS or Daqvammo' peghoS
I'm presuming this last is a typo: Daqvammo' → Daqvamvo'. jangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
The object of ghoS is a locative, so it probably can't take an ablative as its object. Therefore the correct sentence would be Daqvamvo' peghoS.
Further on ghoS, from the interview with Marc Okrand published in HolQeD 7:4: MO: ghoS is a very interesting verb. WM: Oh boy. Is it. My personal sense of ghoS, just trying to figure out what in the world all those different definition segments are pointing towards, is that ghoS would be to follow a path associated with the direct object. MO: Yes. That's good. I've never heard it phrased that way, but that's good. WM: So, typically, the most common thing you'd associate with a path is its destination, but it doesn't have to be. It could be its source. Now, the usage that I've seen most commonly is that we'll use just the noun if it is the destination, but we'll use -vo' on the noun when we are moving away from it. Would that be typical Klingon usage? MO: Yes. The short answer is yes. Tangentially, we don't have ghoS attested with a source of travel as direct object (per Will Martin's speculation quoted above), but we do also have it attested with the course or path of travel as direct object: He chu' yIghoS "[go on a] new course" (ST3) Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e' "that course will take us into the Barrier as well" (ST5 notes) QeS 'utlh
Well, I guess if this place stinks really badly, or is about to explode, then it COULD be said that you must go BECAUSE of this place. Some characteristic of the place is the cause of the urgent response of going. But it would be “marked”. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jun 14, 2019, at 8:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
Daqvammo' peghoS Rhona Fenwick: I'm presuming this last is a typo: Daqvammo' → Daqvamvo'.
oh yes, you're right. I just noticed it too. It's just a typo, what I meant to write was {Daqvamvo'}.
~ m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 14, 2019, at 12:05, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Well, I guess if this place stinks really badly, or is about to explode, then it COULD be said that you must go BECAUSE of this place. Some characteristic of the place is the cause of the urgent response of going.
Indeed, you wouldn’t even need to go AWAY from the place any more, which smelling bad or danger of explosion might motivate you to do, since you’re just going BECAUSE of it: maybe it has a great view, or some historical/cultural significance worthy of pilgrimage, or it’s the only place where you can observe an astronomical event, etc…
On Jun 13, 2019, at 08:44, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people. I have two options:
Daqvamvo' yIghoS or Daqvammo' peghoS
The only reason not to use {pe-} when commanding multiple people would be if the command takes a non-reflexive direct object. I don’t think we have any evidence to support a noun marked with {-vo'} acting as a direct object. So it should probably be {Daqvamvo' peghoS}. I think the more interesting question is, which is correct if you’re telling them to go *to* this place rather than away from it. I’m leaning towards {yI-} for that case, but I’m not sure.
On 6/13/2019 9:53 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
I think the more interesting question is, which is correct if you’re telling them to go*to* this place rather than away from it. I’m leaning towards {yI-} for that case, but I’m not sure.
*DaqvamDaq yIghoS* (commanding multiple people) This is an instance where you're using a locative-marked noun on a verb whose object is inherently locative, which TKD calls "somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong," and which Okrand later described as "overkill." You could say it, but a better way to say it would be *Daqvam yIghoS.* Meanwhile, *DaqvamDaq peghoS* would mean that while you are in this place, you should go somewhere. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 13, 2019, at 08:59, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
DaqvamDaq yIghoS (commanding multiple people)
… poD vay' …
Meanwhile, DaqvamDaq peghoS would mean that while you are in this place, you should go somewhere.
Thanks. That matched my understanding. I’ve seen “locative” used for {-Daq} before but until your recent message I don’t think I’ve seen “ablative” for {-vo'}. Is this a common convention, or just something that you use personally? Could {-vaD} be described as “dative”, using this same alien grammatical terminology? Maybe causal for {-mo'}? I was about to also wonder if one could imagine a null syntactic marker (like the null prefix) for nominative and accusative, but that wouldn’t be right, since both of those can take {-'e'}.
On 6/13/2019 7:15 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Jun 13, 2019, at 08:59, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
*DaqvamDaq yIghoS* (commanding multiple people)
… poD vay' …
Meanwhile, *DaqvamDaq peghoS* would mean that while you are in this place, you should go somewhere.
Thanks. That matched my understanding.
I’ve seen “locative” used for {-Daq} before but until your recent message I don’t think I’ve seen “ablative” for {-vo'}. Is this a common convention, or just something that you use personally? Could {-vaD} be described as “dative”, using this same alien grammatical terminology? Maybe causal for {-mo'}?
Most people don't say /ablative,/ but it fits, is convenient, and corresponds to /locative./ *-vaD* isn't dative because it's also benefactive. You could use /dative/ or /benefactive/ when describing a sentence that clearly has one or the other of these senses, but they're not separate noun cases in Klingon. Unless there is a noun case out there that combines these two, /dative/benefactive/ is the best you're going to get. /Causal/ works for *-mo',* but I prefer /causative,/ simply because it fits in with the others. These are just words to describe Klingon, not inherent properties of the language. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jun 13, 2019, at 18:51, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
These are just words to describe Klingon, not inherent properties of the language.
Right; I was just curious how widespread using this terminology was, since it hasn’t been used AFAIK in any of the canonical descriptions of Klingon grammar. As for dative/benefactive, I’m accustomed to benefactive falling under the dative umbrella already in some Earth languages I happen familiar with, so I didn’t think of benefactive as being separate from dative in the moment, but you’re right that {-vaD} covers both in Klingon and should be acknowledged as both.
“This place” is {naDev}. Why not {naDevvo' peghoS}? It corresponds to a known example. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Jun 13, 2019, at 9:44 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people. I have two options:
Daqvamvo' yIghoS or Daqvammo' peghoS
Which is the right one ?
If someone knows, please tell me, but don't start writing crap like "don't use {ghoS}", in order to avoid answering the actual question.
~ m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 6/13/2019 10:45 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
“This place” is {naDev}. Why not {naDevvo' peghoS}? It corresponds to a known example.
*Daqvam nuq?* /What is this place? /(CK) *Daqvam vIDab.* /I live at this place. /(startrek.klingon) *Daqvam 'ev*/northwest of here/ (startrek.klingon) He can use *Daqvam* if he wants. Why not look at *naDevvo' yIghoS* /Go away!/ (TKD)? Because it doesn't address the question of whether saying this to multiple people would require a *yI-* or a *pe-.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel -
Will Martin