tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 27 14:04:17 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -Daq

Am 26.10.2002 18:32:45, schrieb "DloraH" <>:

>I am not disputing the definition of -Daq.  
Me neither. But there is a connection between -Daq and verbs of motion.

>-Daq can go on the direct
>object, but the prefix still needs to mark that word as the direct object if
>it is to be the destination.
Aha. {-Daq} is one of the few functions whose use I'm not very comfortable with yet. 

>Reference HolQeD Dec 1998, a clearification from MO written after TKD, TKW,
>and PK.
Interesting. I believe I have to spend some nights to read the past eight years of HolQeD, which I just 

Beginners' Grammarian
  ghojwI'pu'wI' vISaH

Back to archive top level