[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: nIq

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

I've been politely contacted off the list to make me aware that I've behaved badly here. I apologize yet again for arrogance and unkindness. Usually, I'd leave the list for a while when I realize that Mr. Hyde has taken over again, and I may yet do so, but this specific question is one for which the answer is so clear, I'd like to offer it as a parting gift. 

Klingon has an unusual perspective toward paths or routes. I believe this relates to its perspective on locatives. But first, your question. 

*{bIQ'a' jIjaH}* is grammatically incorrect. The ocean has no grammatical role in the sentence. It's not a locative, and the prefix shows it is not the direct object. 

{bIQ'a'Daq jIjaH} means that you are going, and that action occurs in the ocean. There is no explicit destination. Likely the environment of your entire movement occurs within the ocean. 

{bIQ'a' vIjaH} and {bIQ'a'Daq vIjaH} mean exactly the same thing. I didn't like this when Okrand revealed it in his interview in HolQed because it looks like the grammar of the two is so different, but despite how I might appear from time to time to believe that my preferences might carry some kind of weight, this is Dr. Okrand's language and whatever he says about it is simply true. 

Both literally mean that you are going along a course or path that could be labeled as the ocean. Most topically, paths or courses are named after their destination, so unless context dictates otherwise, you'd translate this as "I am going to the ocean."

Basically, an unspecified, small list of verbs that we know {ghoS} and {jaH} to be on have a location as their direct object, and so the direct object and location are the same thing, so it doesn't matter if the direct object has {-Daq} on it or not. 

That's the end of anything here I'll state with authority. What follows is either personal insight or folly. Judge for yourself. 

Actions occur at a location or along a path or course. Like shooting. This path typically involves the subject and all objects, direct or indirect. A locative in a Klingon sentence seems to describe the location of that path of the action in a way similar to what Okrand has described concerning verbs like {ghoS} and {jaH}. The main difference is that with general verbs, the {-Daq} is not optional. 

I won't bore or offend you further. You are excellently capable of dealing with that idea without me blathering onward. 

Sent from my iPad
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:02 AM, John R. Harness <cartweel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel :
> 
> > Also note that the object of {jaH} can be the destination.
> 
> This brings up something I would like to discuss, because this subject
> confuses me a little.. Please read the following sentences, and tell
> me if my interpretation/translation is correct.
> 
> bIQ'a' vIjaH or bIQ'a'Daq vIjaH
> I go to the ocean.
> 
> bIQ'a' jIjaH or bIQ'a'Daq jIjaH
> I'm going/moving along the sea. (the sea is the location where the
> "going" is taking place)
> 
> 
> This is a great question that I would also like clarification on.
> 
> It is my understanding that of what you wrote, bIQ'a' vIjaH and bIQ'a'Daq jIjaH are correct, while the other two options are not. But I'm not confident in this. Valency -- by which I mean a verb and potential objects and indirect objects -- is not made obvious in Klingon sometimes.
> 
> I also remember learning from ghunchu'wI' once that using -Daq with the verb ghoS implies that one is traveling "via" a route. Do I remember this correctly?
> Such as: bIQtIqDaq veng vIghoS - I approach a city by river.
> 
> 'arHa
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160215/2e11917c/attachment.html>