[83997] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Missing question words
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Thu Jan 17 09:55:14 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <DAE3B767-84F2-4034-B7CA-AB99BBE7A254@insightbb.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:52:48 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
All locatives are nouns. In that way, {naDev} is a noun. My point is
that I don't understand how {naDev} can be used without it being
locative any more than I could understand {jIHDaq} being used without
it being locative, because {naDev} really is just a synonym for
{jIHDaq}. There is, to my knowledge, no setting in which you could not
replace one with the other. Meanwhile, {naDev} is NOT a synonym for
{jIH}.
This is why I don't understand what you could possibly mean by {naDev}
without an implied {-Daq}.
Doq
On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' Doq:
>
>> Like it or not, {naDev} is a locative,...
>
> Actually, it's a noun. When used as a locative, the customary {-Daq}
> is not used, but it doesn't *have* to be used as a locative.
>
> Some more suggestions loosely based on yours:
>
> naDev juHwIj je chev wa'SaD qelI'qam.
>
> wa'SaD qelI'qam 'ab naDev juHwIj je joj.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
