1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. "I walked from here to there."

"I walked from here to there."

Translation:naDevvo' pa' jIyIt.

April 21, 2018

11 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BobVesterm

Why not "pa'Daq"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

The nouns pa' there, thereabouts, naDev here, hereabouts, Dat everywhere, and vogh somewhere are inherently locative. They include an unstated -Daq in their meanings, so you never add -Daq to them.

DujDaq jIQong I sleep on the ship.
naDev jIQong I sleep here.
pa' jIQong I sleep there.
vogh jIQong I'll sleep somewhere.

There is another word, pa' room, quarters, which is pronounced identically to pa' there, thereabouts. pa' room, quarters is not inherently locative. If you see the word pa'Daq, it must mean in the room; it can't mean at thereabouts, because pa' there, thereabouts never takes -Daq.

pa'Daq jIQong I sleep in the room.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BobVesterm

Thanks. So (similarly to "naDevvo'" despite not "naDevDaq"), do you say "pa'vo'", despite not saying "pa'Daq"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/BobVesterm

And "pa'vo'" presumably could mean both "from the room" and "from there"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mizinamo

And "pa'vo'" presumably could mean both "from the room" and "from there"?

Right.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

Yes. These words have inherently locative meanings, not inherently ablative (-vo') meanings. We even have a canonical example: naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (Power Klingon)

(Note: this example is problematical in other ways, since after it came out Okrand invented the idea that the object of jaH is the destination, and any locative added in addition to that must be the location the going is taking place, not the destination. But it remains a good example of using naDev in an ablative sense.)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mizinamo

pa'Daq would mean "in/to the room".

The adverbial pa' "(to) there" doesn't take -Daq.

(Similarly with naDev "here"; you can't say *naDevDaq "at here; to here".)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jdmcowan

I'm pretty sure TKD lists pa' and naDev as nouns, but I can see how one might think of them adverbially when they indicate a location without taking -Daq.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MarcZankl

In my opinion naDevvo' pa' vIyIt would be correct here, because I travel to a place here and not at a place (which the jI-suffix would mean).


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DavidTrimb3

You're confusing the so-called "verbs of motion" with the meaning of locative and ablative nouns.

There are certain verbs whose meanings include destinations as their objects. For instance, the object of the verb jaH go is the destination of the going. For these verbs, the object is already locative, and you don't need to add -Daq to it (but if you do, it's not technically wrong, just redundant). If you have a locative noun that is not the object of one of these verbs, it must not be read as the destination, because the object plays that role.

yIt walk is not one of these verbs. So far as we know, yIt is intransitive: it doesn't take an object. (For purposes of this discussion, ignore verbs with -moH cause suffixes on them.) If there are any locative nouns in the sentence, they cannot be the object, because there is no object, let alone a locative one. Thus, any locative noun can be interpreted as the destination OR the location of the walking. qachDaq jIyIt could mean I walk to the building or I walk in the building. Context must tell you the correct interpretation.

Only the verbs of motion, the verbs whose objects are naturally interpreted as destinations of the action of the verb, have this destination/location split.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MarcZankl

Thank you very much for your great answer! I think I got it now

Learn Klingon in just 5 minutes a day. For free.