tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 07:22:41 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: -vo'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: -vo'
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:21:16 -0500
>From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: -vo'
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:27:33 -0500
>Importance: Normal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>SarrIS:
>> [much snipped]
>> Qe' Hurvo' Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh. "I was outside the restaurant and I saw
>> Krankor in the restaurant."
>I thought {Qe'Daq Qanqor vIlegh} can only mean "I was at the restaurant,
>and I saw Krankor", and not "I saw Krankor, who was in the restaurant
>(i.e. I may be outside the window)". Isn't {-Daq} marking the place
>where the {legh}ing is taking place, or is there some rule that says
>it could be attached to {Qanqor} in the above?
This is the whole point of this thread. For most verbs, what you say is
true. Meanwhile, others have argued successfully that the locative for the
verb {legh} can indicate the location of the direct object of the verb. I'm
trying to resolve that.
>I read your sentence as {[Qe' Hurvo' Qe']Daq Qanqor vIlegh} "I saw
>Krankor at the 'restaurant from the outside of a restaurant'".
>Could {Qe' Hurvo' Qe'} be the name of the establishment?
{-vo'} is like {-Daq} in that it gives the location reference of the verb,
not to a noun without a verb. Some people refer to this as the "Cat in the
hat" problem. Without a verb, you can't translate "cat in the hat" because
{mIvDaq} gives the location of some action, not of the cat itself.
--
>De'vID
SarrIS