tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 03 12:34:24 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Attending a school (was RE: Daq vIDabbogh vIchoH)

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:50:45 -0400 [email protected] wrote:

> 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." 

If I said this, I said it before Okrand clarified the use of 
locatives with words like this. You would be right to say 
{juHDaq qet loD} means "The man runs at the house." To be less 
ambiguous, I'd say, "While he is in the house, the man runs." To 
"run at the house" can be interpreted as having the house be the 
target of running. "The bull ran at the matador." See?

> {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}}.

Likely this is debatable. I'm not sure we can resolve it neatly.

Meanwhile, I thought {vIH} was the word {ghunchu'wI'} said 
didn't refer to direction. Likely this attribution to 
ghunchu'wI' should either be really researched (we have the Web 
site archive, after all) or dropped before it turns into another 
arguement over who said what. I don't remember the {qet} 
incident you now quote me as saying, though that may say more 
about my weak memory than yours.

> 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.

Especially since we have {buS} for any time we'd want to use an 
object with {qIm}, it seems resolved for {qIm}. I'd also wish 
the definition was worded differently if {jeS] were found to be 
transitive, but until then I just find it easy to work around.
 
> peHruS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level