On 10/22/2020 8:46 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jatlh ck: ghorgh mamej?
'ej jatlh tnk: DaH jImej.
'a qaStaHvIS qepHom 2019, maghojpu': < Daq 'oH {mej} 'ovmay'e'. >
vaj (qepHom 2019 De'mo'), {ghorgh *pI*/*re*/*wI*/DI*mej} 'oHnISpu' ck mu'tlhegh'e', 'ej {DaH *vI*/*qa*/*Sa*mej} ' oHnISpu' tnk mu'tlhegh'e'.
ck tnk je {mej} lo' tlhochba' qepHom 2019 {mej} De'.
Taking a certain kind of object doesn't mean a verb HAS to have an object. It just means that an object is possible, and this is what it is. When you leave off an object where an object is possible, the object is interpreted as unknown or vague. "Thus, *jIyaj*/I understand/ can be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said." So it is with *mej.* If you have no object, the object is unknown or vague. *DaH jImej* doesn't specify the place you're leaving because it doesn't need to: context makes it clear that it refers to wherever you currently are. But you could, if you wanted to, be less vague: *DaH pa'vam vImej*/I will leave this room now./ P.S.: Don't say *'oHnISpu'.* You're not talking about a completed needing to be; you're talking about a past needing to be that is indistinct in its duration and ending. Say *'oHnIS.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name