[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wa'maH cha': <SuchwI' chaw'>

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI'nuv, jatlh:
> It's interesting that everyone is using movie dialog which is obviously
> supposed to be badly formed dialectic, back-country Klingon as the canon
> example that's supposed to clarify whether or not the direct object of
> {ghoS} should be {nuq} or {nuqDaq}.

povam QInwIj bID Qav Daleghbe'ba'. {ghoS} chutmey lutu'lu'meH TKDvo' HolQeDvo'
je chovnatlhmey vIlo'ta' jIH.

taH:
> I'd suggest that the direct object of {ghoS} can never be a locative. If it
> were, it would be the only verb in the language to do that. This is simply
> not what locatives do in Klingon language.

With all due respect, this is exactly what locatives do in Klingon and I'm
surprised to hear you say otherwise, because it was you who interviewed Marc
in HolQeD 7:4 (the interview I quoted just this morning and which I repeat
here) where he said as much explicitly:

MO: Here's the way {jaH} works. {jaH} can be used, using your terminology
both transitively and intransitively. So, {bIQtIqDaq jIjaH} is "I go in the
river." I'm moving along in the river, traveling in the river. You can also
say {bIQtIqDaq vIjaH}..
 WM: You'd still use the {-Daq}?
MO: Yes. But you don't have to. That would be the way. {-Daq} or no {-Daq}.
The prefix makes the difference in meaning. {jI-} means I'm moving along
in someplace. {vI-} means I'm moving along to someplace.
(HolQeD 7:4)
 
So though the form with {-Daq} is marked with respect to the form without,
it's entirely legal. As I also said previously, this is a clarification of
something implied in TKD itself, though the TKD example doesn't have a
prefix and only the translation indicates that it's a parallel:

"There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as
{ghoS} "approach, proceed." The locative suffix need not be used on nouns
which are the objects of such verbs.
{Duj ghoStaH} "It is approaching the ship"
                  ({Duj} "ship, vessel", {ghoStaH} "it is approaching it")
{yuQ wIghoStaH} "We are proceeding toward the planet"
                    ({yuQ} "planet", {vIghoStaH} "we are proceeding toward it")
If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence is
somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong.
{DujDaq ghoStaH} "It is approaching toward the ship."" (TKD, p.28)

So for {ghoS} and {jaH} at least, and probably others ({'el} is mentioned
in the HQ7:4 interview, and I'm sure there are probably others), the
morphological direct object - that is, the argument that the verb carries
direct-object agreement for - may be marked with the locative {-Daq}.

QeS 'utlh