tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 07:04:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nIteb maghIQ
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:21:11 -0700
>From: [email protected]
>I still see {ghoS} as not needing a prepositional phrase, only an Object.
> Instead of saying, that {ghoS} means "goes to [it]," I translate it as
>"approaches [it]." Even though MO has given us permission to use {vengDaq
>wIghoS}, I usually omit {-Daq} in such sentences. I see using {-vaD} for
>"to, toward, at, in, on, etc." as incorrect. {-vaD} means to me only
>"intended for."
Actually, Okrand says he prefers "vengDaq maghoS" (not wIghoS) but that
"veng wIghoS" is also correct. I sometimes like one and sometimes the
other. Intuitively, I think "veng wIghoS" is nicer. And I agree with you
regarding "-vaD".
>Comments from the grammarians please.
See above.
~mark