tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 17 08:13:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A few phrases.
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:19:24 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Patrick Masterson jang pagh:
> >>> The truth is out there: voghDaq vIt tu'lu'
> >>Do you even need <vogh> here? If you decide you do, I would be strongly
> >>tempted to treat the <vogh> like <Dat>, <pa'>, and <naDev> and omit the
> >><-Daq>. We don't have canon (that I know of) to support this, but I cannot
> >>believe that <vogh> does not behave like <Dat>.
>
> I can. TKD is quite explicit. "These words may perhaps be translated more
> literally as 'area around here,' 'area over there,' and 'all places,'
> respectively. Unlike other nouns, these three words are never followed by
> the locative suffix."
>
> Furthermore, {vogh} is part of the original TKD, so one cannot argue that it
> was a later addition to the language and might be an exception. Only three
> words do not use {-Daq} for the locative, and {vogh} is not one of these.
>
> The only reason to go along with the idea of leaving off {-Daq} from {vogh}
> is because it seems to work nicely with other established meanings. In
> language, that's not enough. Sometimes languages are not logical.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 98959.4
While I respect the validity of your observation, I'm curious as
to whether or not you can come up with a useage of {vogh} that
would NOT require {-Daq} then, besides with verbs like {ghoS}
and {leng}.
charghwI' 'utlh