tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 10:26:12 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {nuqDaq DaDab}

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:23:58 -0800 (PST) [email protected] 
wrote:

> In a message dated 2/23/1999 11:27:38 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] 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'.

Yes. Thank you, ghunchu'wI'.

Meanwhile, {nuq} plus {-Daq} to make {nuqDaq} does not imply 
that {nuq} plus {-vaD} would make *nuqvaD* or {nuq} plus {-mo'} 
would make *nuqmo'* or {nuq} plus {-Hom} would make *nuqHom*, 
or even that {'Iv}, which is otherwise grammatically 
equivalent to {nuq} can accurately be used as *'IvDaq*.

Taking the locative concept and adding it to a single question 
word doesn't imply anything else about the ability to add other 
suffixes to {nuq} or to add {-Daq} to any other question words.

That's the REAL point here.
 
> 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 really don't care whether or not {'arlogh} is a new word or 
whether it actually IS a suffixed word. The important thing is 
that, as with {nuqDaq} there is no basis for generalizing about 
what additional suffixes can be applied to {'ar}.
 
> 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?

I believe this is one of perhaps several correct constructions. 
During the interview, Okrand noted that most grammatical rules 
work most of the time, but some of it is fuzzy. In this 
particular area, since we have clear pronouncements that the 
{-Daq} on the direct object of this class of verbs is optional, 
I see this as a case which is probably fuzzy. I'm hesitant to 
make pronouncements about what is absolutely right and declare 
that everything else is absolutely wrong.

I am, of course, willing to talk about right and wrong when I 
don't have such obvious exceptions explicitly presented by the 
person who created the language.
 
> 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}.

jISaHbe'. The point is that it doesn't have anything to do with 
{-DIch}.
 
> Am I right on this one, also?
> 
> peHruS

charghwI'

Back to archive top level