On 8/9/2017 10:18 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:
*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something you're *jaH*-ing /to./
There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.
On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:
{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27) {pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28) {jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)
So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.
I didn't say it wasn't. Specifically, I said that a *-vo'* noun /as the object of/ *jaH* might not work (and only might). I didn't say anything about a *-vo'* noun that isn't the object of *jaH.* In the TKD example above, you can't tell whether *pa'vo' yIjaH* has *pa'vo'* as the object of *jaH* or as a syntactic noun at the beginning. Also, Okrand has revised his use of *-Daq* a little since TKD came out. For instance, in PK (before the /HolQeD /article where he talks about verbs of motion) he says *naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'*/can we get to the Great Hall from here?/ According to the /HolQeD/ interview, that should mean /can we, in the Great Hall, go from here?/ When Okrand revises the rules, I see that as invoking the statement in TKD's introduction that warns that the grammar is only a poorly understood sketch. So the validity of those examples in TKD to verify this point must be considered suspect. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name