tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 08 07:45:55 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: from-to
>Okrand (via Voragh):
> > naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
> > Can we get to the Great Hall from here? (PK)
QeS:
>Interestingly, this example seems to contradict Okrand's statements in HQ
>7:4. For "Can we get to the Great Hall from here?", one would expect
>{naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq wIjaHlaH'a'}. As written, the sentence seems to mean
>"Can we go from here in the Great Hall?".
I would have expected {naDevvo' vaS'a' wIjaHlaH'a'} without {-Daq}.
As I understand it, to refer to a destination with verbs of motion one can
use either (1) the object prefixes without {-Daq}, or (2) the non-object
prefixes with {-Daq}. Although the first is probably better style (more
educated or "proper" usage), the second method feels more
colloquial. Okrand comments:
There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as
{ghoS} "approach, proceed". The locative suffix [{-Daq}] need not be used
on nouns which are the objects of such verbs ... If the locative suffix
is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is somewhat redundant,
but not out-and-out wrong. (TKD 28)
I think "somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong" describes the PK
example nicely - as well as providing a loophole for Okrand whenever he
forgets about using object prefixes with verbs of motion.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons