[86869] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Locatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Thu Nov 19 16:17:14 2009
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:15:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6011382A8825A@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Voragh:
> Tracy Canfield:
> >> (1) Can it be used with nouns referring to
> people? Some languages
> >> with locative constructions use them with nouns
> for people, with
> >> meanings along the lines of "where so-and-so is"
> or "at so-and-so's
> >> house." Does Klingon allow this?
> >
>...
>
> I've long wondered about this. We finally saw an
> example in HolQeD 10.2 in Okrand's article on the finer
> points of using the "finger verbs":
>
> qI'empeqDaq jIqan
> (I think that) K'mpec is old
> (lit. "I point at K'mpec with my little
> finger"). (HQ 10.2:11)
>
> I don't see why we shouldn't be able to say:
>
> wo'rIvDaq qaghom.
> I'll meet you at Worf's.
>
> quwarghDaq matlhutlh DaneH'a'?
> Do you want to get a drink at Quark's?
>
I don't see how you get from your example sentence to an equivalent for "chez". All it establishes to me is that you can use {-Daq} with a proper name, which I thought had already been established. {wo'rIvDaq qaghom} only says to me "We gather at (around, next to?) Worf." Nothing about a person's name standing in for a place associated with that person (pedantic bonus: I believe that's called synecdoche).
In English, "Let's go to Quark." is very different from "Let's go to Quark's." It's the possessive that establishes the synechdochic association (being understood as a contraction of "Quark's place"), not the locative.
-- ter'eS
