On 2/20/2019 11:38 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
Recently the list had a short discussion about the difference between {pa'Daq jIghoS} and {pa' vIghoS}.
I'm curious about the relationship between those things when you add -moH onto the end of it.
Is {pa'Daq qaghoSmoH} "I cause you to come to the room" or is it "While in the room, I cause you to come (somewhere unspecified)"? Intuitively, I feel like it should be the former, but I'm unsure.
Let's preface this with the understanding that we're talking about *pa'* /room,/ not *pa'*/thereabouts./ I'd actually rather change this word to *Duj*/vessel/ so we don't get confused, because *pa'* causes all sorts of problems with this analysis. Let's also assume we're not going to be redundant by adding *-Daq* to a verb's object. The following completely ignores that possibility. Remember this conversation (http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29a-news.txt) where Okrand says that you can tell that *qajatlh* is employing what we later called the prefix trick, because the direct object of *jatlh* is the thing spoken, not the person spoken to, so if the prefix indicates the person spoken to it must be indicating the indirect object. Since the object of *jatlh *is that which is spoken, and since /you/ or /I/ or /we/ cannot be spoken (and therefore cannot be the object of the verb), if the verb is used with a pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object, that first or second person is the indirect object. We have exactly the same situation here. The (direct) object of *ghoS* is the path followed, not the person following it, so since the prefix *qa-* indicates a person, it must be indicating the indirect object. There's your prefix trick right there. *DujDaq qaghoSmoH* means /In the ship, I cause you to go (along some unspecified path)./ It's ambiguous in the sentence whether you or I or both of us are in the ship, but you're not going /to/ the ship. Going to the ship would be *Duj qaghoSmoH* or *SoHvaD Duj vIghoSmoH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name