On 10/23/2017 7:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Perhaps the {'Internet} example wasn't appropriate, because the {'Internet} more or less tends to be considered as a "place", so let me write another example.
Suppose I want to express "molor sits on his pride". I can't write {le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor} because {le'yo'} can't take the {-Daq}.
But if I write:
{le'yo' quS'a'Daq ba' molor} molor sits on his throne of pride
Would it be correct ?
If /Molor sits on his pride/ is somehow established as a metaphor before that sentence appears, then you /can/ say *le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor.* But that's down to your ability to set me up to understand a metaphor, not whether the language allows non-literal entities to be locatives. Anything you can *ba'* on is a locative. If I can *ba'* on *le'yo'* in some unusual expression, then that's a locative. When we tell people to use *-Daq* only on spatial relationships, we're warning them not to use it for other relationships expressed by English /o//n, at, /or /in,/ not that metaphors can't express spatial relationships. If a beginner wants to translate /I ate lunch at noon,/ we might have to warn them that *DungluQDaq* is the wrong concept. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name