tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 18:08:23 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 03:07:58 +0200
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
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.
>
>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,
we
>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
expressed:
{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.
HovqIj
-- temporary BG