Re: {nuqDaq DaDab}

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/23/1999 11:27:38 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
aranders@netusa1.net writes:

<< TKD section 6.4, page 69:
 
 | The word for "where?", {nuqDaq}, is actually {nuq} "what?"
 | followed by the suffix {-Daq} "locative" (see section 3.3.5).
 | As would any locative phrase (see section 6.1), it comes at
 | the beginning of the sentence. >>


Thank you , ghunchu'wI'.

Now, this throws a huge monkey wrench into things?  {'arlogh} is a word not
made of obvious parts.  A major KLI member or two proclaim this is true.  But,
{nuqDaq} is not a standalone word, it is a question word made up of another
question word and the locative suffix.  TKD proves this.

I'll get the monkey off the back of {nuqDaq} right away.  The answer to a
question asked by {nuqDaq} must be a sentence containing a locative in the
place of {nuqDaq}.  This gives {X-Daq verb subject}.  But, if the verb already
contains a preposition that would have been translated as a locative
construction in English, then {-Daq} is not used; rather the answer is a
direct object of the verb.

Am I right now?

But, for {'arlogh}, because of the assertions that it is not {'ar} plus
{-logh}, the answer does not need to have anything to do with {-logh}.

Am I right on this one, also?

peHruS