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

[mayql qunenoS]

thank you very much lojmIt tI'wI' nuv and voragh for taking the time
to share your knowledge on the subject !

cpt qunnoq

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> From my notes WRT {jaH}:
>
>
>
>
>
> TKD 28:  There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such
> as {ghoS} “approach, proceed”. The locative suffix [{-Daq}] need not be used
> on nouns which are the objects of such verbs... If the locative suffix is
> used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant, but not
> out-and-out wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> Will Martin interviewed Marc Okrand in HolQeD (December 1998) on verbs of
> motion and -Daq:
>
>
>
> MO: 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: 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}.
>
>
> Finally, some examples of {jaH} from canon:
>
>
> jIjaH
>
> I go. KLS
>
> pa'Daq yIjaH
>
> Go to the room! TKD
>
> pa'vo' yIjaH
>
> Leave the room! ("Go from the room!") TKD
>
> jolpa'Daq yIjaH
>
> jolpa' yIjaH  (Clipped)
>
> Go to the transport room! TKD
>
> teplIj yIwoH 'ej pa'lIjDaq yIjaH
>
> Pick up your baggage and go to your room. CK
>
>
> naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
>
> Can we get to the Great Hall from here? PK
>
>
> jolpa' yIjaH.  Qapla'!
>
> To the transport room. Success! ST3
>
> may'Daq jaHDI' SuvwI' juppu'Daj lonbe'
>
> When a warrior goes to a battle, he does not abandon his friends. TKW
>
> 'Iw bIQtIqDaq jIjaH
>
> I travel the River of Blood. TKW
>
>
>
> bIghHa' yIjaH
>
> Go to jail!  MKE
>
>
> pIvghor yIchu' 'ej pentatlh wej yIjaH
>
> Warp to Pentath III.  MKE
>
>
> pIvghor yIchu' 'ej qo'rIDan yIjaH
>
> Warp to Coridan.  MKE
>
>
> pIvghor yIchu' 'ej Duj Sumqu' yIjaH
>
> Warp to the nearest vessel.  MKE
>
>
> pIvghor yIchu' 'ej HoSHal Sumqu' yIjaH
>
> Advance to the nearest energy source.  MKE
>
>
> qamchIy HurDaq SuvwI’pu’Daj ra’ qeylIS SaqSub yIjaH
>
> Outside Qam-Chee, Kahless tells his warriors to go to the Saq'sub. (PB)
>
>
> --
>
> Voragh
>
> tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a'
>
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv [mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 8:06 AM
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>