[83940] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Jan 11 16:31:14 2008
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:28:49 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.2.20080111141135.029687f0@imap.uchicago.edu>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Steven Boozer wrote:
> SuStel:
>> Actually, the object of {ghoS} can also be the course followed itself. I
>> don't recall where this is made clear, but I think it was in an
>> interview with Okrand in HolQeD. I am away from my library right now, so
>> I can't cite the source specifically. The online index to HolQeD has
>>
>> ghoS, "approach, go away from": and objects, 3:3/3-5;
>> andtransitivity, 7:4/7-9; used with -Daq, 7:4/9, 8:4/5-10; used
>> with -vo', 7:4/8.
>>
>> I'll bet that's it.
>
> I have my notes with me:
>
> He chu' yIghoS
> Follow a new course! TKD
>
> He chu' ghoS. DIvI' neHmaH.
> New course. Federation neutral zone. ST3
>
> He chu' ghoS
> Set [new] course. (TNG "Unification I")
>
> Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'
> that course will take us into the [Great] Barrier as well. ST5
>
> 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH
> [it is] beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe. DS99
>
>> But it was made quite clear that one can say things like:
>> He ghoS
>> He goes along the road.
>
> Okrand said {He} {He" "course, route" can mean an actual road? Many of us
> have long used it this way. Nice, if true.
No, no, I just made up an example that works for {ghoS}, since I didn't
have a source with me. I didn't really consider WHAT {He} meant until I
had to translate it into English. :) Change "road" to "route" to make
the translation more kosher.
>> I therefore see no problem in specifying the actual kellicams traveled
>> as the object of {ghoS}; they are the route followed.
>>
>> cha'SaD qelI'qam 'ab He. qelI'qam Qav vIghoStaHvIS QapHa'choH QuQ.
>> vaj wa'SaD Hutvatlh HutmaH Hut qelI'qam neH vIghoSpu'.
>
> I had forgotten that something as intangible as a course, as opposed to a
> physical location, can be the object of {ghoS}, and presumably other verbs
> of motion. Why not something equally intangible (if measurable) as
> distance? I now have (almost) no qualms about saying:
>
> veng wa'DIchDaq wa'SaD qelI'qam wIghoS
> We proceed 1,000 kellicams to the First City.
>
> veng wa'DIchDaq wa'SaD qelI'qam vIlengpu'
> I've traveled 1,000 kellicams to the First City.
>
> Since destinations can be optionally tagged with {-Daq}, this provides a
> simple practical way of distinguishing the destination from the distance.
>
> Whether it's right is another matter.
Okrand explains (not in these words) that a "header" locative will be
interpreted as the place where the verb of motion occurs, and the object
is interpreted as the destination. The object can be optionally, and
redundantly, be marked with {-Daq} if desired without changing its
meaning in the sentence.
Are you trying to use {ghoS} ditransitively? That is, both the
destination and the course are meant to be objects of {ghoS}? Because if
{veng wa'DIchDaq} is a header, then these sentences really mean "We
proceed 1,000 kellicams within the First City" and "I've traveled 1,000
kellicams within the first city."
But I agree completely regarding using an intangible (distance) as the
object of these verbs of motion. It needn't be completely intangible,
however. I'm not saying I traveled the measurement of a thousand
kellicams; I traveled THOSE thousand kellicams, those I'm pointing to
right over there.
SuStel
Stardate 8029.8
--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html
