"We were walking from my home to the Great Hall."
Translation:juHwIjvo' vaS'a'Daq mayIttaH.
Locatives (that indicate the location or destination for the action) are additional information:
1) are not part of the OVS sentence structure
2) come before the rest of the OVS sentence structure and
3) (being neither the object nor subject) do not effect the verb prefix.
There are Klingon verbs that use the destination as a direct object of the verb, like jaH, but yIt does not seem to be one of them. However for the verbs that do include the destination as the object of the verb, you would use a prefix that indicates the third-person singular object, as you have suggested.
The noun and verb suffixes are sometimes numbered to show the order in which they come if there is more than one suffix (and which suffixes cannot occur at the same time, if they are both the same type); there are five noun suffix types and nine (numbered) verb suffix types.
Type-5 noun suffixes and type-9 verb suffixes (the last ones, in each case) are syntactic ones, that affect how the noun or verb acts as part of a larger sentence -- type-5 noun suffixes are -Daq -vo' -vaD -mo' -'e' (at, from, for, because of, topic).
Hmm. I see.
Not sure why, but I never really thought '-daq' was quite so, um, verb-y. I think it read more as 'at' or 'where' to me. Like it indicated a place.
Like if 'nuqDaq' was "Where at?" Or if 'vas'a'daq viyit' was "The Great Hall is the place I walked." I mean, okay, that should probably be something like, "The Great Hall is the place to which I walked," which is certainly "to a place", as you said, but...I d'know. Klingon is weird, the way some objects are given focus is a little odd, so some part of me thought that '-Daq' did something a bit not like English; the concept made sense from context, but the actual literal meaning of the suffix was a bit murky.
-Daq isn't verby. It means at, in, on, to, in the vicinity of. vaS'a'Daq jIyIt can mean either I walk to the Great Hall or I walk in the Great Hall. Which one it is depends on context.
In neither case is vaS'a'Daq the object of the sentence.
There are some verbs which automatically impart a locative sense to their objects. The object of jaH go, for instance, is the destination of the going. You could put a -Daq on it, but a Klingon would consider it redundant, and would probably think it sounded silly, if understandable. If you use a -Daq noun on such a verb and it isn't the object of the verb, the to sense of -Daq does not apply. DujDaq Qo'noS wIjaH We go to Kronos on the ship, not We go to Kronos to the ship.
The verb yIt does not impart a locative sense to any object, if it can even take an object. If you want to specify a destination of yIt, put a -Daq on it and put it in front of the sentence. Don't count it as an object.