I wondered the same thing. The excellent boQwI' app says of yIt that "this verb can probably take a direct object." Based on this, I'm guessing that we think that yIt probably works like jatlh in that it can take a destination as its direct object without needing the -Daq suffix, but we just don't have the canonical evidence to know for certain. If anyone has any further insight on this aspect of yIt, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
boQwI' take the approach that all verbs can take an object unless we have been told it can't or unless De'vID (the creator of boQwI', a different guy than the David here) just can't fathom any object for the definition given. It may well be true that yIt takes an object and it would probably be the destination. However, we are not sure about that since "walk" in English doesn't take an object and I don't believe yIt has ever appeared in canon with an object.
If yIt cannot take an object (which the wording in boQwI' admits is a possability by saying "probably") then the sentence from this exercise could mean either "I walked to/towards the Great Hall again" or "I walked in/at the Great Hall again."
If yIt does take the destination as the object, then it probably would work like jaH (jatlh is not a verb of motion, but I assume it was a simple typo). A third person object prefix would be used and the object/destination could be marked with -Daq or it would more likely be left off. However, this sentence does not support that interpretation because a no object prefix has been used. If yIt takes the destination as the object, then the sentence above (with an indefinite object) can ONLY mean "I walk in/at the Great Hall."
Thanks, Jeremy. That's exactly what I had assumed from the boQwI' entry and the above discussion, but thank you for typing out the very detailed and unambiguous clarification! :-)
You're right, jatlh was my error. I did mean to say jaH.
Assuming it's true that yIt is not a verb of motion, and that the -Daq prefix is thus acceptable here, could the original sentence (vaS'a'Daq jIyItqa') also mean 'I walked back to the Great Hall'?
Yes. That's a fine translation.
I would like to note that if yIt does not take an object, then it is not only "acceptable" to use -Daq on the destination, but it is required. And if yIt did take the destination as the object, it would still be acceptable, as using-Daq on the object of jaH is an option.