[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: multiple locatives

[De'vID]

fata irae:
> 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.
> [...]
> pa'vo' vIHtaH qa', 'ej pa'Daq vIHtaH qa'
> The spirit keeps moving from the room, and keeps going to the room.

'arHa:
> Yes, you can specify both places with {-vo'} and {-Daq}. There's no
> grammatical or stylistic reason to not specify, if you want.
> [...]
>
> 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.

This is going beyond KLBC grammar now, but I think {pa'vo' pa'Daq
vIHtaH qa'} can't be talking about a spirit going in and out of the
same room, because {pa'vo'} and {pa'Daq} both apply to the same action
{vIHtaH}. That is, {vIHtaH} is taking place "out of a room" and "into
a room", and the only way I can interpret that is that those are two
different rooms.

I wonder if one could say *{pa'vo' pa'Daq je vIHtaH qa'} for "the
spirit keeps moving from the room and into the (same) room"? I think
it's more clear to split this into two smaller sentences if that's the
intended meaning, though, which is what the second sentence does. And
that one does read to me like it's talking about a spirit going into
and out of the same room.

If the intended meaning is that the spirit visits each of a series of
rooms, in turn, I'd suggest something like {ngIq}: {ngIq pa'Daq Such
qa'} or something like that.

-- 
De'vID