[83936] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (DloraH)
Fri Jan 11 14:19:18 2008
From: "DloraH" <seruq@bellsouth.net>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:16:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <04DCC5B6-78C5-43A8-9FC5-05BC91641DFF@embarqmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> We know that the direct object of {ghoS} can be a destination or a
> place. We don't know that it can be a distance. That's the problem.
>
> The direct object of {ghoS} typically can have or omit {-Daq}.
> Meanwhile, {cha'SaD qelI'qamDaq} is a curious phrase.
>
> Likely, this does work, and we just don't have any examples
> to prove it.
(Disclaimer: I realize we have no canon on this topic and we will not reach a consensus...)
We do have:
bIQtIq vIleng - I travel TO the river.
bIQtIqDaq jIleng - I am travelling along IN the river.
I my mind, with [cha'SaD qelI'qamDaq] (or I think [cha'SaD qelI'qam chuqDaq] might be better) one is
travelling around within the distance of cha'SaD qelI'qam; and not necessarily going from one end to
the other. Like a dog on a chain. The chain measures x 'uj. The dog can travel anywhere within x
'uj. He could go from one end to the other, or he could just wander around in the middle.
Now take out a map. Find the part that says "you are here". Measure out a distance cha' qelI'qam
on the map and draw a tic-mark at that distance. That mark represents a range of cha' qelI'qam.
"range of cha' qelI'qam" [cha' qelI'qam chuq]. You are travelling TO that imaginary mark; [cha'
qelI'qam chuq Daleng].
This would be if you were talking only about the distance travelled.
If you were mentioning both the distance and the destination then use two sentences.
veng wa'DIch vIghoS. cha' SaD qelI'qam 'ab chuq.
DloraH
