[83973] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Missing question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Mon Jan 14 18:55:50 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20080114160135.032ed760@imap.uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:53:40 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
One little stinging morsel... I thought I had a clear understanding
about {-Daq} vs. {-vo'}, but the canon you offer includes:
naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'.
"I can't see well from here."
I would have expected her to say {naDev jIleghlaHchu'be'.} There is no
motion implied. Since the prefix is {jI-}, clearly, {naDev} is
locative and not direct object, so I would have expected it to set the
location one is in while one can imperfectly see. But she used {-vo'}
as if to be clear about which way she was looking. It would be
unfortunate if {-vo'} winds up simply mapping as equivalent the
English word "from" with the Klingon {-vo'}. Any time you say "from"
in English, you use {-vo'} in Klingon?
Of course, she WAS HUMAN, right? Maybe she just didn't know...
Or perhaps canon is simply inconsistent about this?
I feel like I know enough to decide what I prefer, but not enough to
claim any authority over what is better or worse in the absolute
sense. Use what you like, but for me, {-Daq} feels more Klingon when
you are simply setting the place an action occurs, and {-vo'} feels
better when indicating actual motion away from a location.
But I won't argue with anyone who feels differently about it. The
canon is staring me right in the face.
Doq
On Jan 14, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Doq wrote:
>> Several times, people have tended to want to put {naDevvo'} or
>> {DaqwIjvo'} or somesuch at the beginning of a sentence about how far
>> away something is. According to the interview cited here recently,
>> that is already assumed. You'd have to want to change context to
>> somewhere besides the location of the speaker to need any locative in
>> a sentence with {Hop} or {Sum} as the verb. The default location is
>> the location of the speaker.
>>
>> You don't say {naDevvo' Hop juHwIj.} You just say {Hop juHwIj.}
>> {naDev} is assumed, by default, and even if you used it, you wouldn't
>> use {-vo'} because you are not talking about motion. You are talking
>> about location, and that is handled by {-Daq}, which is assumed for
>> {naDev}, so you don't have to use it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if you do change the location context, I think the suffix
>> is {-Daq} and not {-vo'}.
>
> Correct. From Okrand's interview in HQ 12/1998:
>
> WM: Like if I wanted to say, "You are near the table", could I say
> {SoHvaD
> Sum raS}?
>
> MO: No. You'd use {-Daq}: {SoHDaq Sum raS}. This throws the
> orientation
> away from the speaker (unmarked, unstated) and to the listener
> (marked,
> stated: "at you, where you are"). But you don't always need to
> state this
> overtly. Context is critical. For example: {qagh largh SuvwI'
> ghung. Sum
> qagh 'e' Sov.} "The hungry warrior smells the gagh. He/she knows the
> gagh
> is nearby." The only interpretation of this (absent other
> information) is
> that the warrior knows the {gagh} is near the warrior, not the warrior
> knows the {gagh} is near the speaker of the sentences. If context
> isn't
> clear, you can clarify: Question: {Sum'a' raS?} "Is the table near
> (me)?"
> ("Am I near the table?") Answer: {HIja'. Sum raS.} "Yes. The table
> is near
> (you)." Answer: {ghobe'. jIHDaq Sum raS.} "No. The table is near me."
>
>> {juHwIjDaq Hop vavwI'.} "My father is far from my home." I believe it
>> would be incorrect to say {juHwIjvo' Hop vavwI'.} I think that {-vo'}
>> implies actual motion, not distance, and in this construction in
>> Klingon, you are setting the location in much the same way that a
>> time
>> stamp sets the time. Essentially, I'm saying, "If I were at my home,
>> my father would be distant from me." or "If one were at my home, my
>> father would be distant from one." It would make no sense to say
>> "If I
>> were from my home, my father would be distant from me." See?
>
> {naDev} is assumed to be the point of reference for {Hop} and {Sum},
> but
> not for all verbs. E.g.:
>
> naDevvo' yIghoS
> Go away! TKD
>
> naDevvo' jIleghlaHchu'be'
> I can't see well from here. CK
>
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
> Can we get to the Great Hall from here? PK
>
> Logically, {naDevvo'} should have been omitted from all of these as
> the
> context was clear, yet it was added redundantly for clarity (or
> style).
>
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
