tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 18:08:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIDach (KLBC)
- From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
- Subject: Re: jIDach (KLBC)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:09:23 +0200
jatlh QInteS:
>
>
>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.
No, you wouldn't. :-) This rule has been given to us from MO only some
time ago. When TKD came out nobody knew about this rule, except for Maltz,
of course.
>*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.
The problem is just what "those verbs" are. Okrand discussed this issue in a
HolQeD interview and he gave examples only for a few verbs. I'm sure that
{jaH} and {ghoS} work that way, but I don't have that interview (and
couldn't find anything in the list's archives, either) and thus can't tell
you what else he discussed. For some of those motion verbs we still have no
clarification as for how to do the locative.
Your confusion is totally understandable. This whole thing is pretty
new to us, and there are still a lot of questions that have to be answered.
(At least _I_ am not too comfortable with this stuff, yet.)
HovqIj
-- temporary BG