tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 19 01:11:13 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: loQ Colorado-Daq jIleng
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: loQ Colorado-Daq jIleng
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 22:35:30 UT
jatlh peHruS:
> I just prefer the feeling of {"Indianapolis" vIpaw}, using the place word
not
> as a place where intransitive action occurs but as the Object of
> transitivity.
What makes you think that this alleged object is the location at which you're
arriving? Perhaps it's the person who accompanies you. Perhaps it's his pet
targh. Who's to say that {"Indianapolis"Daq jupwI' vIpaw} is any more wrong
than your sentence? There is no evidence to suggest that {paw} is transitive.
> I use {ghoS} from TKD as my example. Even when -Daq is added
> to the Object, the Verb is transitive and the phrase ending with -Daq
remains
> an Object, not becoming a locative phrase.
Wrong. Adding {-Daq} *does* make the place gone to into a locative phrase.
Starting with {juH vIghoS} "I go home," I can add {-Daq}. I get {juHDaq
jIghoS}, not {juHDaq vIghoS}. The {-Daq} noun is NOT the object.
Even so, {ghoS} is a special case, and this sort of thing can't be done for
every verb. It just so happens that {ghoS} takes a object, which is the place
or thing one is approaching. If you use no object, approaching is done to a
"general" object, and the locative is used instead to indicate where that
general approaching is going.
So, you cannot say {"Indianapolis" vIpaw}. You must say {"Indianapolis"-Daq
jIpaw}.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97136.0