[83942] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Fri Jan 11 17:30:45 2008
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:28:59 -0600
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4787DF91.5030404@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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.
Voragh:
> > 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.
SuStel:
>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."
From Will Martin's interview in HolQeD 7.4 (Dec. 1998) on verbs of motion:
WM: In the dictionary, you said that {ghoS} could be used either withr
or without {-Daq} but it would be somewhat marked with the {-Daq}.
Is this true for {jaH} as well?
MO: Less marked? Yes, the same, with the {vI-}, not with the {jI-}.
WM: {leng} - "roam, travel."
MO: {leng} works like {jaH}. These are all okay:
yuQ vIleng or yuQDaq vIleng
I travel to the planet
yuQvo' jIleng
I roam away from the planet
yuQDaq jIleng
I roam (around/about) on the planet
This is not okay: {yuQ jIleng}
As I read this, it can mean either. But either way you're right: It is
ambiguous. I simply suggested it as a practical way of handling what
appear to be two objects:
wa'SaD qelI'qam vIlengpu'
I've traveled 1,000 kellicams.
veng wa'DIch vIlengpu'
I've traveled to the First City.
veng wa'DIchDaq jIlengpu'
I've traveled to the First City.
? veng wa'DIchDaq wa'SaD qelI'qam vIlengpu'
I've traveled 1,000 kellicams to the First City.
If you really intend to say "within the First City" you can use one of the
area nouns:
veng wa'DIch qoDDaq wa'SaD qelI'qam vIyItpu'
I've walked 1,000 kellicams within the First City.
Alternatively, you could use two clauses:
? veng wa'DIch vIlengpu', wa'SaD qelI'qam vIlengpu' je.
--
Steven L. Boozer
Cataloging Department sboozer@uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Library (773) 702-8726
