tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 02 22:38:05 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:37:18 EDT
In a message dated 8/2/1999 10:07:28 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< The revellations about {chegh} have to
do with locatives for verbs that can have a target location
associated with their movement. I'm not sure that works for
{jeS}, and I'm not sure that {jeS} has any other justification
for taking an object yet. Okrand can always declare otherwise,
but so far there is no evidence that has convinced me to use
{jeS} with a direct object.
>>
=========================
The consensus I have seen on this listserv is that {jeS} does not take an
object. Neither does {qIm}. I would not have had any objections if MO had
declared that these (and similar) verbs may take an object and he merely had
not glossed them that way in the dictionary. But, for now I have followed
the majority and do use qepDaq jIjeS.
On the other hand, charghwI' posted once a message including {juHDaq qet
loD}, or an extremely similar parallel. I asked charghwI' if this does not
mean "The man runs at the house" but got the answer charghwI' intended this
to mean "The man runs to the house." {qet} has not been seen in the list of
verbs of motion. Therefore, when I asked why {qet} is not on the list,
ghunchu'wI' answered me {lurgh qelbe' mu' {qet}}.
Although I have a feeling we will be told that there are a few more verbs
that may take a direct object with or without the optional {-Daq}, I'll be
using {jeS} and {qIm} without direct objects.
peHruS