1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. "They are climbing to the roo…

"They are climbing to the roof of the tower."

Translation:chalqach bebDaq toSlI' chaH.

December 28, 2019

12 Comments


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

You would think toS would be a motion verb that has the destination as its object and doesn't use Daq.


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

I would expect the surface being climbed to be the object of toS and thus the destination would have to be indicated as a location. I would expect that the above could also be expressed as bebDaq chalqach lutoSlI'.


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

Or could it act more like jaH and leng for which the destination is the natural object and the space through which one is traveling uses -Daq. Like I am traveling through space to earth, which if I am doing it right would be loghDaq tera' vIleng. I can see why you want to do it in reverse but it is more consistent with the other verbs of motion to have the destination as the natural object not using -Daq and the area one traverses to get there do need -Daq?


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

Understand that the distinction that TKD makes is verbs that have an inherent locative sense, not "verbs of motion." Mostly it's motion verbs that are inherently locative, but not exclusively. (Dab inhabit is probably an inherently locative verb, since the subject must inhabit a location.)

The criteria for being an inherently locative verb is not that motion is involved but that a location is involved. If the object of the verb is always a location, it's probably an inherently locative verb. With toS climb, a location is not necessarily involved. You can climb a thing, not a location. A location may have things in it, but it's still the things, not the location, that you climb. I think it's unlikely that toS is an inherently locative verb.


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

Thank you for pointing out that they are locative verbs. That helps to keep things more correct in my head.

About toS and having a goal, you could say the same of jaH. Some people walk just to walk with no goal in mind at all. But usually people have a place they are going. Climbing is the same as in usually when somebody is climbing, they have an idea of where they are trying to get to. You climb a location just the same as you walk a location. You walk on a road to get where you are going just as you climb on a ladder to get where you are going. I don't see much of a difference between the two.


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

It's not about having a goal. It's about whether the object of the verb is inherently a location. In the case of toS, it doesn't appear to be. If I toS a rope, the important relationship between me and the rope is not my location on it; it's my using it to ascend. That's not a locative meaning.

On the other hand, when I jaH a building, the important relationship between me and the building is that it is my destination. That is a locative meaning. If you just jaH without a destination in mind, you're just not using an object. Being inherently locative doesn't mean you have to specify an object, just that if you do specify an object, that object is locative.

You walk on a road to get where you are going just as you climb on a ladder to get where you are going.

In Klingon, yIt does not appear to be a locative verb, or even a transitive one. You don't yIt anything; you just yIt. Any locative sense you want to give it must be added with an explicitly locative noun in the front.


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

I should have said go on a road. I don't really see how going is more locative than climbing. I'm really not getting it.


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

Then you'll just have to take my word for it that toS is not locative. You climb the rope; you don't climb the location identified as the rope. You do go the location identified as the building.


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

I have seen these called verbs of motion by other people. So why can't they be called that? I see here that the author (Is it TD?) seems to be indicating that Okrand himself has called these verbs of motion. Is that correct?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/105332748/Klingon-Grammar-Addenda

The author here says that what he has written in bold are direct statements by Mark Okrand. Then he has written in bold type that "verbs of motion have different meanings when used with and without Daq and object prefixes." Then he goes on to discuss ghos and others so he is talking about the verbs with locative meanings. Is he paraphrasing and Okrand has himself never called these verbs of motion or has Okrand called them this?

The other thing I noticed is he also states that the accepted usages for Klingon grammar have developed since TKD was published and that it appears here that there are new accepted rules about using motion verbs. But he doesn't give a definition of what fits the term motion verbs. However, it says that direction towards is the default and does not need a Daq marker; indicate location with a Daq marker and a no object prefix.

In that case, how is climbing not a motion verb that would fit this?

I don't want to be argumentative. I am trying very hard to understand this and TKD is no longer the only determiner of Klingon grammar and vocabulary. Unfortunately, everything else exists only in people's memories or written in various places like emails and notes that are not available to people like me very often so it is very hard to figure things out. And I did not just make up "verb of motion" in my head. That term gets thrown around in the Klingon language community. I have no way of knowing if it is correct or not. It makes it difficult to understand how this language is supposed to work when we don't have an updated official grammar anywhere. TKD is not enough to cover the language anymore.


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

I have seen these called verbs of motion by other people. So why can't they be called that?

I am one of the people who used to call them verbs of motion. But that classification is incorrect. What The Klingon Dictionary tells us about is verbs with an inherent locative sense, not verbs of motion.

I see here that the author (Is it TD?) seems to be indicating that Okrand himself has called these verbs of motion. Is that correct?

I don't believe Okrand has ever used that term. Klingonists invented the term. I am probably one of the people who helped invent it. But it's not a correct classification. The special property of these verbs is not that they describe motion; it's that they contain an inherent locative sense. And verbs other than those indicating motion can include an inherent locative sense.

I see here that the author (Is it TD?) seems to be indicating that Okrand himself has called these verbs of motion. Is that correct?

I disagree with a lot of Donnelly's conclusions, and this document is very out of date. I can't read from the source you linked, but I read it here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonGrammarAddenda and it appears that "verbs of motion" is Donnelly's text, not Okrand's. Which makes sense, since Donnelly was (is?) a subscriber to the Klingon Language Mailing List, which is where the term originated. Donnelly was simply following the common wisdom at the time.

The other thing I noticed is he also states that the accepted usages for Klingon grammar have developed since TKD was published and that it appears here that there are new accepted rules about using motion verbs.

It would be more accurate to say that the explanation in TKD was clarified and that we learned some of the verbs that follow the rule. The rule itself is in TKD; it just wasn't adequately illustrated.

In that case, how is climbing not a motion verb that would fit this?

Because it's not correct. Even the term "verbs of motion" was never meant to say that any verb that implies any kind of motion follows the rule. It was meant that a verb that was discovered (revealed by Okrand) to be a so-called verb of motion would be one that followed the rule, but we would need Okrand to list all such verbs explicitly for us before it would be one.

I am trying very hard to understand this and TKD is no longer the only determiner of Klingon grammar and vocabulary. Unfortunately, everything else exists only in people's memories or written in various places like emails and notes that are not available to people like me

I would love it if Okrand published a new, definitive Klingon dictionary with all the grammar we've ever learned. It's never going to happen.

Between The Klingon Dictionary and the above link to the interview on this topic, that's just about all there is on this subject. I can't help that. People like Donnelly have tried to compile all the grammar into one source, but they make mistakes and get things wrong. None of us is a Klingon speaking his or her native language, so we can only go on whatever we can research or get straight from Okrand.

And I did not just make up "verb of motion" in my head. That term gets thrown around in the Klingon language community.

No, you didn't, and yes, it does. I'm one of the people who helped invent it. And it was a mistake. It doesn't adequately explain the phenomenon in question.

I have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.

I suspect the only way you'd ever be comfortable with this is if Okrand published a new, completely definitive Klingon dictionary and grammar. It's not going to happen. The ONLY way to get everything is to study the sources. Since Klingons are not real, no one can independently reconstruct the grammar by asking one questions.

t makes it difficult to understand how this language is supposed to work when we don't have an updated official grammar anywhere.

There's never been an "official grammar." TKD was written to be a Star Trek novelty book. Okrand expected Trek fans to buy a copy and be amused looking through it, maybe constructing a few sentences or translating something from Star Trek III. He wasn't inventing anything "official." But since it's his language, and he's the gateway to the Klingons that we can't reach because they're fictional, you either have to go along with the premise or else everyone will make up their own grammar and words and there will be NO mutually intelligible language.

I don't want to be argumentative.

You have reached the limit of what we can give you as "official." Klingon is not run by a committee. There is no source of Klingons you can independently go to to ask grammar questions. There will probably never be an updated official grammar, and even if there were I'd bet it would still be incomplete. At this point, you can either accept the state of things or not. But I warn you: if you start saying things like tlheghDaq vItoS, people are going to tell you you're wrong.


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

Thanks much David for that very thorough explanation. That really helps clarify things for me quite a bit.


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

I see climbing as an activity, not a motion. But I can't be certain. You and I have different opinions and no way to confirm who's right at this time.

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