[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: -Daq, and pronouns with -taH

[SuStel]

On 4/23/2016 3:02 AM, De'vID wrote:
> QISta':
>> So which is correct:
>> {nuqDaq SoH?}
>> or
>> {nuqDaq SoHtaH?}
>> ?
>>
>> And which of these is correct:
>> {DujDaq 'oH De'wI''e'.}
>> or
>> {DujDaq 'oHtaH De'wI''e'.}
>> ?
> I'm kind of surprised that SuStel hasn't said anything on this thread.

I thought about it, but I've been very busy lately and have had to 
choose the messages I respond to. *puqloD Qup vIQorghtaH 'ej juH chu' 
vInejtaH.*

> Is it really true that there exist no instances in canon of (1)
> {nuqDaq} used with a pronoun which has {-taH}, and (2) noun-{Daq} (or
> {naDev}, {pa'}, or {Dat}) used with a pronoun without {-taH}?
>
> Based purely on the known grammar of type 7 suffixes, I'd consider
> {DujDaq 'oH De'wI''e'} and {DujDaq 'oHtaH De'wI''e'} to both be
> correct sentences, but with different meanings.

Given the meaning of *-taH,* I'd expect the constructions with *-taH* to 
refer to non-permanent locations, while those without *-taH* refer to 
permanent locations. Most of the locative to-be constructions written by 
Okrand have been describing the locations of people rather than fixed 
features, and so get *-taH,* while sentences without *-taH* tend to be 
equating one person or thing with another.

I don't think the canon completely bears this out, though, so I didn't 
want to proclaim it without doing some research first. We'd basically 
have to list every to-be sentence ever and sort them into *-taH* and no 
*-taH,* then look at whether the sentences are referring to permanent or 
non-permanent features. *DaH **yapbe' poHwIj.*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160423/6d737fd9/attachment.html>