[110399] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using object prefix with {-vo'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lie_Demonchaux?)
Wed Aug 9 10:18:37 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <90cb6ed8-8d46-639d-282f-9be74853dc8e@trimboli.name>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lie_Demonchaux?= <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:18:32 +0200
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============2644712756667246702==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14aa303b67b2055652c191"
--94eb2c14aa303b67b2055652c191
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> *juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently
> includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*
> -ing *to.*
>
> There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is
> probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
>
On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:
{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)
{pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28)
{jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)
So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.
@mayqel
Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't think it's inherently wrong, but there
might be a shade of nuance in the meaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}.
Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} would insist more on the fact that you're *specifically
*going AWAY from the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going
somewhere, which happens to be outside/ away from the house".
That's just my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would
understand it differently.
2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
> On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> juHDaq vIjaH
> I go to the house
>
> juHDaq jIjaH
> The going takes place in the vicinity of the house
>
> juHvo' jIjaH
> I am going away from the house
>
> We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always
> use a prefix indicating no-object.
>
> But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered
> wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix
> indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?
>
> *juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH*
> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something
> you're *jaH*-ing *to.*
>
> There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is
> probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
>
> On the other hand, I bet *jaghvo' vIDoH* is considered a redundant form
> of *jagh vIDoH* for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs
> of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because their
> objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any
> similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you
> could find a verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet *N**mo' vIV*
> would be considered just as redundant.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
--94eb2c14aa303b67b2055652c191
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"><p style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px"><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b>=C2=A0is considered redundant beca=
use the object of=C2=A0<b>jaH</b>=C2=A0inherently includes a locative sense=
. Anything you=C2=A0<b>jaH</b>=C2=A0is something you're=C2=A0<b>jaH</b>=
-ing=C2=A0<i>to.</i></p><p style=3D"font-size:12.8px">There is no inherent =
"away from" sense to=C2=A0<b>jaH,</b>=C2=A0so=C2=A0<b>juHvo' =
vIjaH</b>=C2=A0is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.<=
/p></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,hel=
vetica,sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12=
.8px"><br></span></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:ar=
ial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-=
size:12.8px">On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examp=
les:</span></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:1=
2.8px"><br></span></div><div class=3D"gmail_default"><span style=3D"font-si=
ze:12.8px">{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)=
</span><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8=
px">{pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (</span><span style=3D"f=
ont-size:12.8px">section 3.3.5., p28)</span></div><div class=3D"gmail_defau=
lt"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">{jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the tr=
ansport room!> (section 7.1, p73)</span><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_de=
fault"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_default"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">So it seems ok and cannon to us=
e -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.</span></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_default"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_default"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">@mayqel</span></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_default">Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't thi=
nk it's inherently wrong, but there might be a shade of nuance in the m=
eaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}.=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_def=
ault"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default">Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} wou=
ld insist more on the fact that you're <u>specifically </u>going AWAY f=
rom the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going somew=
here, which happens to be outside/ away from the house".</div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default">That's just=
my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would understand it diffe=
rently.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">=
<br></span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></=
span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D"">
<div class=3D"m_-1368413231580930659moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 8:41 A=
M, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">juHDaq
vIjaH
<div dir=3D"auto">I go to the house</div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">juHDaq jIjaH</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">The going takes place in the vicinity of the house<=
/div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">juHvo' jIjaH</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">I am going away from the house</div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in =
the
last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.</div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH},
then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules,
or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is
unnecessary/redundant ?</div>
</blockquote>
</span><p><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b> is considered redundant because the objec=
t of
<b>jaH</b> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you <b>jaH<=
/b>
is something you're <b>jaH</b>-ing <i>to.</i></p>
<p>There is no inherent "away from" sense to <b>jaH,</b> so <=
b>juHvo'
vIjaH</b> is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright
disallowed.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I bet <b>jaghvo' vIDoH</b> is considered a
redundant form of <b>jagh vIDoH</b> for a very similar reason. In
fact, I believe the "verbs of motion" are not special becau=
se they
describe motion, but because their objects have inherent syntactic
roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any similar verbs would do
likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you could find a
verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet <i><b>N</b></i><b>mo=
'
vI<i>V</i></b> would be considered just as redundant.<span class=3D=
"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888">
<pre class=3D"m_-1368413231580930659moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"m_-1368413231580930659moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://tri=
mboli.name" target=3D"_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c14aa303b67b2055652c191--
--===============2644712756667246702==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============2644712756667246702==--
