<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 10:18 AM, Aurélie
Demonchaux wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEr0j+TVJA0V1p3DwLXkfD1MBCb6uTm+w8=ccH8k59mhTeSrhQ@mail.gmail.com">
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<p style="font-size:12.8px"><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b> is considered
redundant because the object of <b>jaH</b> inherently includes
a locative sense. Anything you <b>jaH</b> is something you're <b>jaH</b>-ing <i>to.</i></p>
<p style="font-size:12.8px">There is no inherent "away from"
sense to <b>jaH,</b> so <b>juHvo' vIjaH</b> is probably an
awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">On the
other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{pa'Daq
yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{pa'vo'
yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (</span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">section 3.3.5., p28)</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{jolpa'Daq
yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">So it
seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with
<jaH>.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I didn't say it wasn't. Specifically, I said that a <b>-vo'</b>
noun <i>as the object of</i> <b>jaH</b> might not work (and only
might). I didn't say anything about a <b>-vo'</b> noun that isn't
the object of <b>jaH.</b> In the TKD example above, you can't
tell whether <b>pa'vo' yIjaH</b> has <b>pa'vo'</b> as the object
of <b>jaH</b> or as a syntactic noun at the beginning.</p>
<p>Also, Okrand has revised his use of <b>-Daq</b> a little since
TKD came out. For instance, in PK (before the <i>HolQeD </i>article
where he talks about verbs of motion) he says <b>naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq
majaHlaH'a'</b><i> can we get to the Great Hall from here?</i>
According to the <i>HolQeD</i> interview, that should mean <i>can
we, in the Great Hall, go from here?</i></p>
<p>When Okrand revises the rules, I see that as invoking the
statement in TKD's introduction that warns that the grammar is
only a poorly understood sketch.</p>
<p>So the validity of those examples in TKD to verify this point
must be considered suspect.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>