[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH cha': <SuchwI' chaw'>

[Qov]

I have no argument with the going-to sense, nor with any of the 
examples you discuss; although I won't deny occasionally making 
errors with declarative sentences, they are errors, not misunderstandings.

Our difference lies in what nuqDaq means.  ghunchu'wI' and you seem 
to see it as meaning "nuq+locative" i.e. to-place or at-place, in the 
manner of puchpa'Daq or Qo'noSDaq. I see it as meaning simply 
"place", with an interrogative slant, perhaps with an etymology in 
the manner of QongDaq.

nuqDaq DaghoS?

Daqvetlh vIghoS.

Daqvetlh replaces nuqDaq with no change of grammar, just as Qel 
replaces 'Iv below.

'Iv DaghoS?

Qel vIghoS.

I think nuqDaq is the exact interrogative equivalent of any named 
destination. You, I understand, think it's the interrogative 
destination nuq plus the locative suffix -Daq. As far as I can tell 
we disagree on that point only.

You may argue that nuqDaq is also the interrogative equivalent of 
QongDaqDaq and that as we don't say {nuqDaqDaq QottaH HoD} that the 
syllable Daq in QongDaq is a removable locative suffix. I don't 
believe that. I think that nuqDaq, like naDev can be a direct object 
or a location without adding or removing a suffix.

I also understand that nuqDaq DaghoS becomes ambiguous in that the 
question could refer to either the location of the full path or of 
the destination, but then same with the answer, if it's pa' or naDev.

- Qov

At 08:35 05/01/2012, you wrote:
>In English, the question referring to your destination is a location 
>because that's the relationship between English verbs of motion and 
>their destination. So, in English the question word is "Where". But 
>in Klingon, using the verb {ghoS}, the destination is not a location 
>of the noun. It's the noun itself.
>
>Let me try again.
>
>English:
>
>"Where are you going?"
>
>"I'm going to my workplace."
>
>In Klingon, the verb doesn't mean "going", such that you add the 
>helper word "to" after it to explain the relationship between 
>"going" and "workplace". In Klingon, the verb MEANS "going-to". So, 
>the Klingon equivalent question is:
>
>"What are you going-to?"
>
>"I'm going-to my workplace."
>
>It would be poor form to say, "I'm going-to to my workplace," so it 
>is poor form to ask, "Where are you going-to?"
>
>See?
>
>You want a prepositional relationship between the "going" verb and 
>the location the subject is going to, but in Klingon, it's not a 
>prepositional relationship. It's a direct object.
>
>This is similar to the English "orbit" vs. "go around". The moon 
>orbits the Earth. It also "goes around" the Earth. You can say that 
>it orbits around the Earth, but that's an odd and unnecessary 
>redundancy, and Klingon doesn't really encourage a lot of redundancy.
>
>All verbs with direct objects really have prepositional 
>relationships with their direct object that are implicitly part of 
>the definition of the verb, but the implication of the prepositional 
>relationship built into the definition of the word effectively gives 
>us a null preposition. All a preposition does is explain the 
>relationship between the verb and the noun, and with direct objects, 
>you don't need that helper word. You know there's a noun that has 
>that relationship with the verb, and that relationship is so common, 
>you don't even have to explain it. Just put the noun there, and we 
>know what to do with it.
>
>That's what makes {ghoS} so interesting. It's a non-English (and 
>probably non-most-human-languages) relationship between a verb 
>describing a person's moving along a path and the noun on the path 
>that marks the destination of the path, or possibly even some other 
>point on the path that the path would be recognized by. That last 
>part is pretty vague. Okrand talked about it without giving any examples.
>
>pItlh
>lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
>On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Qov wrote:
>
>>I understand the arguments against nuqDaq DaghoS, but to me the 
>>answer to nuq DaghoS is {tlhoy'vetlh} or {chob'a'vam}, not jonwI' choQ.
>>
>>Has nuq ever been used in canon as a destination?  Has 
>>interrogative where ever been translated without nuqDaq?
>>
>>I'll evade here with {nuq 'oH ghochlIj'e', HoD?}
>>
>>How would you feel about {nuqDaq DajaH?}?
>>
>>I really like these discussions and don't ever feel that I'm being 
>>nitpicked whether it's a mere qaghwI' or a using a verb against canon.
>>
>>- Qov
>>
>>At 06:49 05/01/2012, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:
>>>I disagree about {nuqDaq DaghoS} vs. {nuq DaghoS}. I think either 
>>>is acceptable and can be understood, but {nuq DaghoS} is 
>>>preferable if you want to know the target of one's travel, while 
>>>{nuqDaq DaghoS} is preferable if you want to identify a larger 
>>>location that contains the entire path one travels to get there.
>>>
>>>Remember that Okrand has explained to us that {ghoS} doesn't just 
>>>mean to go somewhere. It means to move along a path from something 
>>>to something. The direct object is an object located somewhere 
>>>along the path, most typically, the goal location. It's the thing 
>>>that, for the purposes of the sentence, the path is named after.
>>>
>>>If you add {-Daq}, then the noun isn't a direct object of {ghoS}, 
>>>it's the location that includes the path one travels upon while one {ghoS}s.
>>>
>>>In My Humble Opinion.
>>>
>>>I think he actually gave an example that {bIQtIq vIghoS} means "I 
>>>am going to the river," or "I'm traversing a path that includes 
>>>the river, probably as its destination," while {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS} 
>>>means "I'm in the river and I'm going somewhere." Also note that 
>>>{bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} is a perfectly formed sentence, while {bIQtIQ 
>>>jIghoS} is not. This implies that {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS} has an 
>>>unstated direct object, while {bIQtIQDaq} is the location of the 
>>>action of the verb, not its direct object.
>>>
>>>That's the key. If I ask {nuqDaq DaghoS?}, then I'm not asking 
>>>where you are headed. I'm asking everywhere you've been and intend 
>>>to go. I want the broader, all-inclusive location you are 
>>>traveling in; the entire zone, not just the direction.
>>>
>>>pItlh
>>>lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 4, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Qov wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey, I missed you. You're part of the creative process now. :-)
>>>>
>>>>At 13:50 04/01/2012, you wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Qov 
>>>>><<mailto:robyn at flyingstart.ca>robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>>>>> > ngo' Duj 'ach veQ 'oHbe'bej.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do' veQDuj 'oHbe' veS'e'.
>>>>
>>>>lInDab Duj 'oH. 'ach Qu'DajvaD thoy ngo'.
>>>>
>>>>> > "nuqDaq DaghoS, HoD?"
>>>>>
>>>>>'utbe' <-Daq> qar'a'? I'm getting a "from whence" vibe here.
>>>>
>>>>jIQoch. I'm pretty sure nuqDaq is a chunk like QongDaq, not the 
>>>>same word as, say nuqDaq DaQeq = what are you aiming at.  If 
>>>>there were numerous objects in the room and you had to pick one 
>>>>to approach then sure, nuq DaghoS, but "Where are you going?" = nuqDaq DaghoS.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>- Qov
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>>>><mailto:Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>>>>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>_______________________________________________
>>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>><mailto:Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120105/8f36c8d1/attachment.html>