[112159] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] naDev and 'el
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Mon Mar 11 12:55:49 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <A24363CF-417F-490A-884C-0355F9F75903@mac.com>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:55:34 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============7968727336839452862==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009739d70583d471f2"
--0000000000009739d70583d471f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
*betleHmeyraj boroQlaH, Sujoppa' 'ej Suway'pa'.*
http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt
MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in
the river."
I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...
WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no
{-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm
moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to
someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.
WM: {bav}
MO: You don't need a {-Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbiting.
WM: {Dech} - "surround." [[p.9]] [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {ngaS} - "contain." [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {vegh}
MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.
WM: {'el} - "enter." [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered into the
room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's okay.
It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," but you don't
need that.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:50 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
> I honestly disagree about {=E2=80=98el} having locative objects=E2=80=A6 =
or at least I
> think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard enough t=
o
> converse about without everyone getting confused about what the other
> person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I=E2=80=
=99m just
> confused about the wording.
>
> Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear=E2=80=A6
>
> {=E2=80=98el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It=E2=
=80=99s the subject
> and the agent, if you will.
>
> The motion occurs at a place. That=E2=80=99s the whole point of the verb.=
The
> object of {=E2=80=98el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} =
is the
> path. The motion of {=E2=80=98el} has an indefinite beginning and a speci=
fic end
> point. The motion of {ghoS} has undefined beginning and end with a path
> that has a name, which quite often corresponds to the destination, but th=
at
> is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without making an=
y
> reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a
> destination I can get to via Interstate 95, and basically, I=E2=80=99d be=
calling
> Interstate 95 =E2=80=9CThe Washington, DC road=E2=80=9D.
>
> You don=E2=80=99t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {=E2=80=98el}. T=
he structure or
> area one enters can be named without grammatically notating it as a
> location. The fact that you are entering it implies that it is a location=
.
> If a drug enters the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is=
a
> location. Everything you enter is a location.
>
> In English, =E2=80=9CI enter the stadium=E2=80=9D. It would be weird to s=
ay, =E2=80=9CI enter into
> the stadium,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CI enter at the stadium.=E2=80=9D The pr=
eposition is unnecessary
> because that locational meaning is built into the meaning of the verb. In
> this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would be strange to put {-Daq} =
on
> the direct object of {=E2=80=98el}. It would feel redundant, and then you=
=E2=80=99d need
> some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy.
>
> It would also be a little confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at
> least the possibility that it=E2=80=99s not the direct object of the verb=
. Like
> instead of saying =E2=80=9CI entered the stadium,=E2=80=9D you might say =
=E2=80=9CI entered [the
> stadium] at the front gate.=E2=80=9D You are not really saying that you e=
nter the
> front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium=E2=80=A6 a=
t the
> front gate.
>
> Is that clear enough, or is this yet another argument, where we mean the
> same thing and argue over the one and only right way to say it?
>
> charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan
>
> rInpa=E2=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 pI=E2=80=99.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2019 12:04 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
> {naDev Da=E2=80=99elpa=E2=80=99}.
>
>
>
> If you asking about {naDev}, it=E2=80=99s a noun in Klingon not an adverb=
ial, and
> thus can be the object of a verb. If you=E2=80=99re asking whether {=E2=
=80=98el} takes an
> object, it does; e.g.:
>
>
>
> *tach vI'el*, *HItlhej*
> Let's go to the pub. (RT)
>
> *Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'*
>
> that course will take *us* into the [*Great*] Barrier as well! (ST5)
>
>
>
> *neHmaH Da'el net tu'*
> Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)
>
> He's asking whether *'el* is a verb with an inherent locative sense. The
> answer is no, it is not. The object of *'el* does not have to be a
> locative. The fact that *naDev* is automatically locative doesn't change
> the lack of locative requirements of *'el.*
>
>
> *tugh naDev wI'el **Soon we will enter here.*
>
> It's awkward in English to say *enter here;* I wonder if *naDev* being
> inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon. You might pref=
er
> sentences like *tugh pa'vam wI'el* or *tugh Daqvam wI'el.*
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
--0000000000009739d70583d471f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_defa=
ult" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>betleHmeyraj boroQ=
laH, Sujoppa' 'ej Suway'pa'.</b></div><div class=3D"gmail_d=
efault" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a hr=
ef=3D"http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt">http://klingonsk=
a.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt</a></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" s=
tyle=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><pre>MO: Here's the way=
{jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I =
go in
the river."
I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...
WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no
{-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm
moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to
someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
WM: At that point, {bIQtIq} has no function in the sentence.
MO: Right.
WM: {bav}
MO: You don't need a {-Daq}. Just use whatever it is that you are orbit=
ing.
WM: {Dech} - "surround." [[p.9]] [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {ngaS} - "contain." [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing.
WM: {vegh}
MO: [laughs] Yes. "To go through." Same thing.
WM: {'el} - "enter." [[-:=3D--]]
MO: Same thing. Now, if you did say {pa'Daq vI'el} "I entered =
into the
room," you could say, well, that's overkill, but that's ok=
ay.
It's not like, "Oh, my God, I don't understand you," =
but you don't
need that.</pre></div></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:50 PM Will=
Martin <<a href=3D"mailto:willmartin2@mac.com">willmartin2@mac.com</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div>I honestly disagree about {=E2=80=
=98el} having locative objects=E2=80=A6 or at least I think I disagree, sin=
ce this is one of those things that is hard enough to converse about withou=
t everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying. We may v=
ery well mean exactly the same thing. I=E2=80=99m just confused about the w=
ording.</div><div><br></div><div>Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear=E2=
=80=A6</div><div><br></div><div>{=E2=80=98el} is a kind of motion. A being =
or thing is in motion. It=E2=80=99s the subject and the agent, if you will.=
</div><div><br></div><div>The motion occurs at a place. That=E2=80=99s the =
whole point of the verb. The object of {=E2=80=98el} is the destination, ju=
st as the object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {=E2=80=98el} has an =
indefinite beginning and a specific end point. The motion of {ghoS} has und=
efined beginning and end with a path that has a name, which quite often cor=
responds to the destination, but that is not necessarily the case. I can {g=
hoS} Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can al=
so {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via Interstat=
e 95, and basically, I=E2=80=99d be calling Interstate 95 =E2=80=9CThe Wash=
ington, DC road=E2=80=9D.</div><div><br></div><div>You don=E2=80=99t need {=
-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {=E2=80=98el}. The structure or area one e=
nters can be named without grammatically notating it as a location. The fac=
t that you are entering it implies that it is a location. If a drug enters =
the bloodstream, in terms of meaning, the bloodstream is a location. Everyt=
hing you enter is a location.</div><div><br></div><div>In English, =E2=80=
=9CI enter the stadium=E2=80=9D. It would be weird to say, =E2=80=9CI enter=
into the stadium,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CI enter at the stadium.=E2=80=9D Th=
e preposition is unnecessary because that locational meaning is built into =
the meaning of the verb. In this case, I think Klingon is similar. It would=
be strange to put {-Daq} on the direct object of {=E2=80=98el}. It would f=
eel redundant, and then you=E2=80=99d need some kind of reason for having e=
xpressed that redundancy.</div><div><br></div><div>It would also be a littl=
e confusing, since the use of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that=
it=E2=80=99s not the direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying =E2=
=80=9CI entered the stadium,=E2=80=9D you might say =E2=80=9CI entered [the=
stadium] at the front gate.=E2=80=9D You are not really saying that you en=
ter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium=E2=
=80=A6 at the front gate.</div><div><br></div><div>Is that clear enough, or=
is this yet another argument, where we mean the same thing and argue over =
the one and only right way to say it?</div><br><div>
<div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div style=3D"color:=
rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-vari=
ant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;t=
ext-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text=
-decoration:none">charghwI=E2=80=99 vaghnerya=E2=80=99ngan<br><br>rInpa=E2=
=80=99 bomnIS be=E2=80=99=E2=80=99a=E2=80=99 pI=E2=80=99.</div><div style=
=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal=
;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-ali=
gn:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacin=
g:0px;text-decoration:none"><br></div><br class=3D"gmail-m_-732564817193435=
8564Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class=3D"gmail-m_-7325648171934358=
564Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:11 PM, SuSte=
l <<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trim=
boli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class=3D"gmail-m_-7325648171934358564Appl=
e-interchange-newline"><div>
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div class=3D"gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2019=
12:04 PM, Steven Boozer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-si=
ze:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">{n=
aDev
Da=E2=80=99elpa=E2=80=99}.=C2=A0
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125=
)"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"fon=
t-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)=
">If
you asking about {naDev}, it=E2=80=99s a noun in Klingon not an
adverbial, and thus can be the object of a verb.=C2=A0 If you=E2=
=80=99re
asking whether {=E2=80=98el} takes an object, it does; e.g.:<u></=
u><u></u></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;fo=
nt-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u>=C2=
=A0<u></u></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12pt"><b=
>tach vI'el</b>,
<b>HItlhej</b>
<br>
Let's go to the pub. (RT)<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNorma=
l"><b>Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'</b>
<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">that course will take <i>u=
s</i> into the [<i>Great</i>]
Barrier as well! (ST5)<b><u></u><u></u></b></p><p class=3D"MsoNorma=
l"><b><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></b></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bo=
ttom:12pt"><b><span style=3D"color:rgb(192,0,0)">neHmaH Da'el net tu=
9;</span></b>
<br>
Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE)</p>
</blockquote><p>He's asking whether <b>'el</b> is a verb with a=
n inherent
locative sense. The answer is no, it is not. The object of <b>'el=
</b>
does not have to be a locative. The fact that <b>naDev</b> is
automatically locative doesn't change the lack of locative
requirements of <b>'el.</b></p><p><b>tugh naDev wI'el<br>
</b><i>Soon we will enter here.</i></p><p>It's awkward in English=
to say <i>enter here;</i> I wonder if <b>naDev</b>
being inherently locative makes this just as awkward in Klingon.
You might prefer sentences like <b>tugh pa'vam wI'el</b> or <=
b>tugh
Daqvam wI'el.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class=3D"gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=
=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"gmail-m_-7325648171934358564moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http=
://trimboli.name/" target=3D"_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>tlhIngan-Hol mailing lis=
t<br><a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target=3D"_blank">tlhIng=
an-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br><a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tl=
hingan-hol-kli.org" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlh=
ingan-hol-kli.org</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________=
________________________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target=3D"_blank">tlhIngan-Ho=
l@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.cgi/tlhingan-hol=
-kli.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--0000000000009739d70583d471f2--
--===============7968727336839452862==
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
--===============7968727336839452862==--
