[tlhIngan Hol] Using object prefix with {-vo'}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Aug 9 06:26:14 PDT 2017

On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> juHDaq vIjaH
> I go to the house
> juHDaq jIjaH
> The going takes place in the vicinity of the house
> juHvo' jIjaH
> I am going away from the house
> We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we 
> always use a prefix indicating no-object.
> But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be 
> considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using 
> a prefix indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?

*juHDaq vIjaH* is considered redundant because the object of *jaH* 
inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you *jaH* is something 
you're *jaH*-ing /to./

There is no inherent "away from" sense to *jaH,* so *juHvo' vIjaH* is 
probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.

On the other hand, I bet *jaghvo' vIDoH* is considered a redundant form 
of *jagh vIDoH* for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs 
of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because 
their objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by 
suffixes. Any similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't 
describe motion. If you could find a verb whose object is inherently 
causative, I bet /*N*/*mo' vI/V/* would be considered just as redundant.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170809/ca13a8b6/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list