tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 07 23:12:14 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- From: [email protected] (William Martin)
- Subject: RE: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:10:29 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
I agree with your interpretation of TKD on {-Daq}. The HolQeD you seek is
v7n4. It's the interview with Okrand.
charghwI'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Ruehlaender [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:35 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Raise your betleH to the stars.....
>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> > I think this is a matter of debate. We know that at least in most cases,
> > adding {-Daq} to a noun implies that the noun relates to the
> location of the
> > action. Some argue that it also can imply, as you do, that it can be the
> > target of the action, but I think that's shaky ground, and by a little
> > recasting, it is unnecessary.
> >
> I always read TKD 3.3.5 this way. Am I reading too much into
> the possibility of translating -Daq by "to", then? Does this
> only apply when it (redundantly) marks the direct object of
> verbs of movement?
>
> IIRC, {DujDaq vIjaH} means "I'm going to the ship." vs
> {DujDaq jIjaH} "I'm going on the ship." (I have a hard time
> finding the HolQeD issue that covered this)
>
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
>