tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 18 04:51:52 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Another idea about {-vo'}
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Another idea about {-vo'}
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:44 -0500
- Importance: Normal
SarrIS:
> We know that {ghoS} and a limited set of related verbs can have {-Daq} on
> their direct objects or they can not have {-Daq} on their direct objects and
> it is assumed that the direct object is being used as a location. {juH
> vIghoS} means "I'm going home," even while the significant thing about
> "home" is its location, not its substance. {juHDaq} vIghoS} means exactly
> the same thing. {juHDaq jIghoS} has a the shifted meaning that you are going
> somewhere and the entire trip is contained in your home.
>
> What about {Haw'}? It seems to imply {-vo'} in the same way that {ghoS}
> implies {-Daq}.
[snip for brevity]
> Can anyone think of other verbs that might work this way?
I can think of the following:
{HeD} "retreat"
{lel} "get out, take out"
{nargh} "escape"
Another thought:
What if the verb takes {-Ha'}? Does that reverse the functions of
{-vo'} and {-Daq}, and what would {-vo'} and {-Daq} mean with a
{-Ha'}ed verb? I can think of some other words that might take
{-vo'},
{DuvHa'} "un-advance", "mis-advance"
{yongHa'} "un-get in", "mis-get in"
How would you interpret {tera'vo' vIHaw'Ha'}? {tera'Daq vIHaw'Ha'}?
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]