[112160] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] naDev and 'el
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Mar 11 12:56:33 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:56:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <A24363CF-417F-490A-884C-0355F9F75903@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8613046177670253855==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------EA91FE4247FFCD409238AE27"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------EA91FE4247FFCD409238AE27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/11/2019 12:50 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative objects… or at least I
> think I disagree, since this is one of those things that is hard
> enough to converse about without everyone getting confused about what
> the other person is saying. We may very well mean exactly the same
> thing. I’m just confused about the wording.
>
> Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…
>
> {‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in motion. It’s the
> subject and the agent, if you will.
>
> The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point of the verb. The
> object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the object of {ghoS} is
> the path. The motion of {‘el} has an indefinite beginning and a
> specific 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 that is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS}
> Interstate 95 without making any reference to my destination. I can
> also {ghoS} Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via
> Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The
> Washington, DC road”.
>
> You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or {‘el}. The 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, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird to say, “I enter
> into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.” The 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 {‘el}. It would feel
> redundant, and then you’d 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’s not the direct object of the verb.
> Like instead of saying “I entered the stadium,” you might say “I
> entered [the stadium] at the front gate.” You are not really saying
> that you enter the front gate. You enter AT the front gate. You enter
> the stadium… at 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?
No, I think you're right, and I withdraw my earlier conclusion. If you
say *pa'Daq bI'el,* that's different than saying*pa' Da'el.* The first
says you're in the room and you enter something unspecified. The second
says you enter location identified as the room. If this is the case,
then you could say *pa'Daq Da'el* to refer to entering the room, and it
would be one of those correct but redundant sentences. In every example
Voragh posted, the object was a place being entered, an unmarked locative.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------EA91FE4247FFCD409238AE27
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2019 12:50 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A24363CF-417F-490A-884C-0355F9F75903@mac.com">
<div class="">I honestly disagree about {‘el} having locative
objects… or at least I think I disagree, since this is one of
those things that is hard enough to converse about without
everyone getting confused about what the other person is saying.
We may very well mean exactly the same thing. I’m just confused
about the wording.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Okay, so here I go, trying to be clear…</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">{‘el} is a kind of motion. A being or thing is in
motion. It’s the subject and the agent, if you will.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The motion occurs at a place. That’s the whole point
of the verb. The object of {‘el} is the destination, just as the
object of {ghoS} is the path. The motion of {‘el} has an
indefinite beginning and a specific 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 that
is not necessarily the case. I can {ghoS} Interstate 95 without
making any reference to my destination. I can also {ghoS}
Washington, DC, which is a destination I can get to via
Interstate 95, and basically, I’d be calling Interstate 95 “The
Washington, DC road”.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">You don’t need {-Daq} on the object of {ghoS} or
{‘el}. The 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.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In English, “I enter the stadium”. It would be weird
to say, “I enter into the stadium,” or “I enter at the stadium.”
The 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 {‘el}. It would feel redundant, and then you’d
need some kind of reason for having expressed that redundancy.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It would also be a little confusing, since the use
of {-Daq} suggests at least the possibility that it’s not the
direct object of the verb. Like instead of saying “I entered the
stadium,” you might say “I entered [the stadium] at the front
gate.” You are not really saying that you enter the front gate.
You enter AT the front gate. You enter the stadium… at the front
gate.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I think you're right, and I withdraw my earlier conclusion.
If you say <b>pa'Daq bI'el,</b> that's different than saying<b>
pa' Da'el.</b> The first says you're in the room and you enter
something unspecified. The second says you enter location
identified as the room. If this is the case, then you could say <b>pa'Daq
Da'el</b> to refer to entering the room, and it would be one of
those correct but redundant sentences. In every example Voragh
posted, the object was a place being entered, an unmarked
locative.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------EA91FE4247FFCD409238AE27--
--===============8613046177670253855==
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
--===============8613046177670253855==--
