On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 19:20 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 7:13 PM, DloraH wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 12:25 -0400, SuStel wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: ... * *
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}". 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." 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.
I don't think you'd even need to appeal to three syntactic nouns to do that: *DujDaq puchpa'vo' chegh*/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.
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.