tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 18:08:23 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIDach (KLBC)

jatlh QInteS:

>> >qatlh qep'a'Daq bIjaHbe'?
>> [It's {qatlh qep'a'(Daq) DajaHbe'?}. You wrote "Why don't you go _at_
>> qep'a'?".]
>You know, honest to goodness it NEVER even occurred to me that those verb
>prefixes implied locative.  I read that last night on the newsgroup (the
>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.
>Now, I always assumed the {yI-} was "no object".  Doggone imperatives.  But
>even if it is the {yI-} meaning {you/it} MO still used {-Daq}.   But now,
>find it's only supposed to be {pa' yIjaH}?

The rule is: A few verbs, among which are {ghoS} and {jaH}, take direct
object indicating prefixes and have the destination of the motion either as
direct object or with the suffix {-Daq} when a movement _to_ a place is

{pa' vIjaH} and {pa'Daq vIjaH} both mean "I go to the room"

When you want to indicate the place where an action is occurring, the
no-object prefixes are used, and the place takes {-Daq}:

{pa'Daq jIjaH}- "I go in the room"

>Hmmmm.  jImIS.

qay'be'. Huj pab 'ay'vam.

-- temporary BG

Back to archive top level