On 11/21/2016 12:51 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
{mo'Dajvo' pa'wIjDaq je narghpu' He'So'bogh SajlIj} I knew of using {-vo'} and {-Daq} at the beginning of a sentence, in order to express the "from ---> to"; but somehow I had the idea that the two nouns can't be joined by the {je}. If this sentence is correct (is it ?) I will be happy to assimilate this knowledge.
There's no rule against it. There's a theoretical reason not to do it, which is not demonstrated one way or another in canon so far as I know: it might make sense if you cannot stylistically join nouns of dissimilar syntactic roles. We have seen /not/ conjoining nouns of dissimilar role: *naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a' */Can we get to the Great Hall from here?/ (CK) (Notice that this sentence seems to violate the later revelations by Okrand of the workings of verbs of motion, like *jaH*.)
jIH:
qatlho'qu' voragh ! choQaHta'mo' ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} thank you voragh ! because you helped me, from hell I escaped} lieven: Well, then the place is not the object, so I'd use {jI-} on nargh. hmm.. I didn't know that. can't {nargh} "to escape" have an object ? as in "I escaped hell" ?
You can either say *ghe''orvo' jInarghpu'*/I escaped from Grethor/ or *ghe''or vInarghpu'*/I escaped Grethor./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name