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