tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 23:47:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: compound words
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: compound words
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 97-06-19 21:12:25 EDT, SuStel writes:
<< > qep'a' loSDIch vIpawpu'DI'
We've seen that {paw} does not necessarily take an object. We have the line
from Power Klingon's joke:
Qo'noSDaq paw cha' DIvI' beq
Therefore, you really should say
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."
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.
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}.
Looks like another area to be proven!
peHruS