tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 12:30:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIDach (KLBC)
K'ryntes wrote:
> > [It's {qatlh qep'a'(Daq) DajaHbe'?}. You wrote "Why don't you go _at_
> > qep'a'?".]
huh? {Daq} can't mean "to"? I hate imperatives. If that example wasn't using an
imperative I would've known this years ago. *picks up the nearest imperative and
squashes it* Ah, that made me feel better.
>
>
> You know, honest to goodness it NEVER even occurred to me that those verb
> prefixes implied locative.
Okay, the fog is lifting a bit. It's the verbs that imply locative. *reading my
mu'ghom* Oh, I get it. I think my crisis is passing. So {jaH} is just one of
those verbs. Whew. I thought I had been reading my dictionary up-side-down or
something. So I wasn't wrong? I was redundant?
> I read that last night on the newsgroup (the posts
> from MO). I was blown away. Was it like that all along and I just never
> noticed? So in most of the cases I've always used {-Daq} I never really
> needed it? Or does both ways work? Like the example on pg. 27 of TKD
>
> pa'Daq yIjaH. Go to the room.
{yI-} vImuS.
QInteS