tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 21 15:29:39 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: compound words

jatlh peHruS:

> > qep'a' loSDIchDaq jIqawpu'DI'
> > As soon as I have arrived at qep'a' loSDIch
> 
> TKD p28 Sec. 3.3.5 Syntactic Markers:  "There are a few verbs whose meanings
> include locative notions, such as {ghoS} "approach, proceed."  The locative
> suffix 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."

We had this discussion a few months ago on the list.

> While needing further evidence as to which verbs, other than {ghoS},
> specified, we can use in this manner, I have sensed that verbs of motion may
> take a direct object without adding the N5 {-Daq}.  {paw} is such a verb of
> motion.

Are you sure?  It's gloss doesn't give any hint as to the fact that it can 
take the destination as the object.  The gloss for {ghoS} does.  We have 
direct evidence that the destination is used as a locative noun.

> Further, I would say {yuQvam yImej} rather than {yuQvamDaq yImej}.  There
> could be some argument {yuQvamvo' yImej}.  I say {vergh tlheD Duj} rather
> than {verghDaq tlheD Duj} or {verghvo' tlheD Duj}.

These are all unproven cases, I think.  Personally, until we see an example, 
I'd prefer to use the version with the Type 5 noun suffixes which, even if 
redundant, is definitely right, as opposed to the object version, which has no 
guarantee.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97470.2

Back to archive top level