<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/10/2017 7:39 PM, DloraH wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1502408346.6404.45.camel@bellsouth.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:20 -0400, SuStel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">*
*
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">What I'm trying to understand (and the more this thread continues, the
"trying" becomes "struggling"), is why -as De'vID wrote- "the pattern
is {X-vo' Y-Daq chegh} and not {Y-Daq X-vo' chegh}".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I don't know anything about there being a REASON it can only work that
way. What I know is what Voragh has already pointed out: we have many
canonical examples of*X-vo' Y-Daq OVS* and none of *Y-Daq X-vo' OVS.*
The answer to your question is "that's just the way it is."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">For me, a leading -Daq would be the location where the whole [-vo' -Daq
chegh] is taking place.
HoD - [nuqDaq beq? yuQ ghoSta''a'?]
yaS - [jISovchu'be'. yuQ ghoSlaw']
yuQ ghoS HoD. beq nej.
Meanwhile... DujDaq puchpa'vo' vutpa'Daq chegh beq.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do
that: <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>/on the ship, he returns from the
bathroom./ There's probably some scoping rules baked into our
language-using brains that does this. No way to tell if Klingons do the
same.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">But you left out the part about returning "to the galley".
I put the DujDaq on there to emphasis that the crewman is still on the
ship; as opposed to returning from a toilet to a galley, in some
building down on the planet.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I left it out for exactly the reason I stated: you don't need it
to see what the role of <b>X-Daq Y-vo'</b><b> V</b> seems to be
when X is of a greater scope than Y. I wasn't continuing to
describe your scenario.<br>
</p>
<p>You're talking about the crew of a ship. First you talk about the
landing party. Then you say <b>DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh HoD</b><i>
on the ship, the captain returns from the bathroom.</i> This is
unlikely to be interpreted as <i>the captain returns to the ship
from the bathroom.</i> Thanks to the apparent scoping of
syntactic nouns, you need to see <b>X-vo' Y-Daq</b> to interpret
them in the same scope, <i>from X to Y.</i> In the other order, <b>Y-Daq
X-vo',</b> it FEELS like Y has a different precedence than X. <i>On/at/in
Y, something happens from X.</i></p>
<p>Again, we have no evidence of this; it's just some implicit
scoping that we have trouble ignoring. It's probably evidence of
English bias.<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>