tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 26 21:57:50 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: "New York"Daq lengwIj
From: "Aryeh ben Naphtali" <email@example.com>
> Saturday, January 26, 2002 9:41 PM ghItlh TPO <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: RE: KLBC: "New York"Daq lengwIj
> >leng works like jaH and ghoS. The destination is the direct object. The
> >indirect object with -Daq on it is the medium by/in/on which you travel.
> >HolQeD Dec 98, Okrand:
> TKD 3.3.5. "If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting
> sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."
> I am ready to obey the laws; but WHAT exactly are they? Is there a list of
> 'verbs of movement' which do not require -Daq as destination marker?
> If you remember, I have already goofed with "WarszawaDaq jipaw"...
The rule is that there are certain verbs which take the destination as their
objects, and that you're allowed to use /-Daq/ on these destination objects
if you feel like it. These verbs are:
'el (which Okrand said could take /-Daq/ on its object, but would be
overkill to do so)
ghoS (curiously, he said the same thing about this verb as he did /'el/,
which means /DujDaq vIghoS/ is allowed, but also considered overkill)
That's the entire list of known "destination verbs". We know of no other
verbs which can take a destination, or any other noun, with /-Daq/ or /-vo'/
added to its object.
This information comes from HolQeD Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 8-9. "Interview
with Marc Okrand," December 1998.