Re: KLBC: "New York"Daq lengwIj

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Aryeh ben Naphtali" <stasys@mail.admiral.ru>
> Saturday, January 26, 2002 9:41 PM ghItlh TPO <cheesbro@rpa.net>
> 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:

jaH
paw
leng

'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.

SuStel
Stardate 2072.9