[Tlhingan-hol] povjajwIj

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' naHQun, jatlh:
> juHDaq jIchegh.

jang De'vID, jatlh:
> {juH vIchegh} 'e' vImaS. There's some contradiction in the canon about
> how to specify the destination of {chegh}. But this was clarified in
> this email:
> http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt
> 
> {juHDaq jIchegh} is ambiguous and can mean either "I return home" or
> "I return at home (I return somewhere, while inside my house)".

Not quite. {juHDaq jIchegh} isn't actually ambiguous, and means only the latter: "I return, while inside my house". For "I return home" (that is, "I return *to* the house"), the sentence must actually be either {juH vIchegh} or {juHDaq vIchegh}, in both instances with the pronominal prefix {vI-}. With verbs of motion like {chegh} and {jaH} and {'el}, the pronominal prefix is the important part in disambiguating the meaning (use of the superfluous {-Daq} is a marked but grammatical variant in the {vIchegh} form).

>From HolQeD 7.4 (http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt), where the syntax of verbs of motion is discussed:

----------
MO [Marc Okrand]: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology, both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in the river." I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}...

WM [Will Martin]: You'd still use the {-Daq}?

MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}. The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace. You cannot say {bIQtIq jIjaH}.
----------

Tangentially, this is one of only two instances 
known in Klingon grammar where a pronominal prefix (presumably) governs a noun marked
 with a Type 5 suffix.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151106/df80bc5e/attachment-0001.html>