[Tlhingan-hol] Tlhingan-hol Digest, Vol 51, Issue 138

[DloraH]

> > When there is motion from one place to another, is it
> > appropriate/acceptable to specify both places?  And more 
> > specifically, is
> > it acceptable to specify multiple objects/non-objects?
> > 
> > pa'vo' pa'Daq vIHtaH qa'
> ...
> The spirit keeps moving from room to room.
> Yes, you can specify both places with {-vo'} and {-Daq}. 
> There's no grammatical or stylistic reason to not specify, if 
> you want.

We have some canon related to this.
HolQeD 8:4

>>>
 There is an idiomatic expression
still head with reasonable frequency
which makes use of all three
cardinal direction terms:

{tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq}

Literally, this means <from area-
sothwestward to area northwestward
to area eastward>'' ({-Daq}, the locative [[''=>]]
suffix, here indicating <to>), but the
idiom means ``all around, all over,
all over the place.'' It is used in the
same place in a sentence in that the
noun {Dat} <everywhere> might be used,
but it is much more emphatic:

{tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu'}
I've traveled all over the place

     A more archaic form of the
idiom is {tIngvo' 'evDaq 'evvo'
chanDaq} (literally, <from area-
southwestward to area-northwestward,
from area-northwestward to area
eastward>), but the three-word
version (without the repetition of
{'ev}) has all but totally replaced it.
<<<


- DloraH



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John R. Harness [mailto:cartweel at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 18:50
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Tlhingan-hol Digest, Vol 51, Issue 138
> 
> Hi! Thanks for using the KLBC tag!
> 
> 
> Yes, you can specify both places with {-vo'} and {-Daq}. 
> There's no grammatical or stylistic reason to not specify, if 
> you want.
> 
> 
> Now, if you are trying to translate "from room to room," then 
> you do need to be careful that you're not shoehorning the 
> English phrase. But, as you go on to show, there are a 
> variety of ways that you could express the idea -- what you 
> choose to use comes down to style. You can decide whether to 
> use a more specific verb (as you do with {chegh}) or you 
> could restate as multiple phrases, as you also show.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, your translations of your examples leave 
> me wondering if you are speaking of a spirit moving from one 
> room into another, or of a spirit who is only going into and 
> out of one room. Perhaps you could make this less ambiguous 
> by choosing to use {-vam} and {-vetlh}, if it is relevant.
> 
> 
> 'arHa
> 
> Beginner's Grammarian
> 
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:26:17 -0500
> From: fata irae <fatairae at gmail.com>
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: multiple locatives
> Message-ID:
>         
> <CA+_YdevDa=Y3r_XnE7bj1iQ-gYfvMCSchcRfeXV=4AJU5AjqCQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> When there is motion from one place to another, is it
> appropriate/acceptable to specify both places?  And more 
> specifically, is
> it acceptable to specify multiple objects/non-objects?
> 
> pa'vo' pa'Daq vIHtaH qa'
> The spirit keeps moving from room to room.
> 
> Or is this an example of shoe-horning a english construct to tlhIngan?
> Would it be more appropriate (following simplicity), to say:
> 
> pa'vo' vIHtaH qa', 'ej pa'Daq vIHtaH qa'
> The spirit keeps moving from the room, and keeps going to the room.
> 
> Or perhaps more eloquently,
> 'ej pa'Daq cheghtaH.
> and keeps returning to the room.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/201511
> 19/0443b900/attachment-0001.html>
> 
>