tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 12:30:27 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIDach (KLBC)

K'ryntes wrote:

> > [It's {qatlh qep'a'(Daq) DajaHbe'?}. You wrote "Why don't you go _at_
> > qep'a'?".]

huh?  {Daq} can't mean "to"?  I hate imperatives.  If that example wasn't using an
imperative I would've known this years ago.  *picks up the nearest imperative and
squashes it*  Ah, that made me feel better.

> You know, honest to goodness it NEVER even occurred to me that those verb
> prefixes implied locative.

Okay, the fog is lifting a bit.  It's the verbs that imply locative.  *reading my
mu'ghom*  Oh, I get it.  I think my crisis is passing.  So {jaH} is just one of
those verbs.  Whew.  I thought I had been reading my dictionary up-side-down or
something.  So I wasn't wrong?  I was redundant?

>  I read that last night on the newsgroup (the posts
> from MO).  I was blown away.  Was it like that all along and I just never
> noticed?  So in most of the cases I've always used {-Daq} I never really
> needed it?  Or does both ways work?  Like the example on pg. 27 of TKD
> pa'Daq yIjaH.  Go to the room.

{yI-} vImuS.


Back to archive top level