<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 12/5/2019 9:39 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ce6f5335-73f8-9896-0402-56e33f965c83@gmx.de">Am
05.12.2019 um 15:28 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
<br>
> If we want to say "I gave the knife to the officer", we say
{yaSvaD
<br>
taj vInob}.
<br>
>
<br>
> Can someone please explain, why it would be wrong to say
{yaSDaq taj
<br>
vInob} ?
<br>
>
<br>
> ~ bara'qa'
<br>
<br>
First I thought this should be clear, but with furrther thinking,
I
<br>
understnad your question.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>English, and I'm sure some other languages, use the same
preposition <i>(to)</i> to indicate locatives and recipients.
This is the source of the confusion.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ce6f5335-73f8-9896-0402-56e33f965c83@gmx.de">
Basically, -Daq is to be used as a locative. When you give
something to
<br>
someone, in English you use the same word ("A to B"), but neither
of you
<br>
changes their location. Still you may say that the knives moves
from A
<br>
to B, but then you should remember that -Daq is used in that sense
only
<br>
with verbs of motion (walk, go, travel).
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>This is misleading. For one thing, <b>yIt</b> is not a "verb of
motion" in the sense of it being a verb with an inherently
locative meaning the way <b>jaH</b> and <b>leng</b> are. You
cannot say <b>vaS'a' vIyIt</b> for <i>I walk to the Great Hall.</i>
When you use one of these non-locative verbs, any locative you
attach to it can mean the action happens in or near that location,
but it can also mean that the locative is the destination of the
action. <b>vaS'a' jIyIt</b><i> I walk in/at/on/by/to the Great
Hall.</i><br>
</p>
<p>In verbs with an inherently locative sense, the <i>in/at/by/on</i>
meaning is separated from the <i>to</i> meaning. If a noun is the
object of one of these verbs, it has a <i>to</i> sense. If it's
put in front of the object, it has the other senses. <b>vaS'a'Daq
vIjaH</b> means my destination is the Great Hall (and the <b>-Daq</b>
is considered redundant). <b>vaS'a'Daq jIjaH</b> means I'm in,
near, or on the Great Hall and I'm going somewhere inside it. <b>vaS'a'Daq
Qang pa' vIjaH</b><i> I go to the chancellor's room in the Great
Hall.</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ce6f5335-73f8-9896-0402-56e33f965c83@gmx.de">
Using -Daq in the process of giving something, it somehow sounds
like "I
<br>
gave the knife into the direction of the officer" which may be
<br>
understood, but sounds very awkward.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>It could also mean that while I'm in the location of the officer,
I give the knife to someone not specified. Not at all the intended
meaning.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ce6f5335-73f8-9896-0402-56e33f965c83@gmx.de">
-vaD is defined as marking the benificient of the action, so "I
gave it
<br>
to him" literally means in Klingon "I gave it and he was the
receiving
<br>
person." No movement implied, so no -Daq used.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>No location implied at all, movement or otherwise.<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>