[tlhIngan Hol] Is {Sal} a verb of movement ?

[Will Martin]

Well said.

I’m guessing we disagree less than you think we do. Likely, it would help anyone interested in understanding this that the object of these unusual verbs is a noun whose location is its important feature. This is, as you like to point out, a semantic issue, not a grammatical one. We understand that the object of {ghoS} and its ilk is a location. We don’t have to mark it grammatically with {-Daq}, and if we do mark it with {-Daq}, we potentially give the noun a role that is not the object of the verb. It’s not horribly wrong if we mark the object of the verb with {-Daq} but it opens an unnecessary door to misunderstanding.

The Moon orbits the Earth in Space. The Moon orbits in Space. The Moon doesn’t orbit Space.

charghwI’ ‘utlh



> On Feb 12, 2019, at 10:06 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 2/12/2019 9:37 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> In the interview, Okrand said that adding the {-Daq} WOULD change the meaning. His example was being in a boat on a river. {-Daq} applies to the boat. The object of {ghoS} is the river.
> No, he said that adding -Daq to the object would not change the meaning, only make the sentence redundant. I'm not talking about adding a locative with -Daq on it before the object.
> 
> Duj vIjaH I go to the ship.
> 
> DujDaq vIjaH I go to the ship (redundant).
> 
> DujDaq jIjaH While I'm on the ship, I go somewhere (on the ship).
> 
> In the first two, Duj(Daq) is the object. In the last one, it is not. What Okrand was saying is that when you've got a verb that includes a locative notion, the object of that verb is the locative, and any locative added before the object cannot duplicate the meaning of the object.
> 
> So with Duj vIjaH, the object Duj indicates the destination ("to" the ship.) If I say DujDaq jIjaH, the DujDaq is a locative that cannot mean to the ship, because that meaning is inherent in the verb's object, but it can mean any of the other possible meanings of -Daq: on the ship, in the ship, by the ship, at the ship. It just can't mean to the ship.
> 
> 
> 
>> I don’t remember {jaH} having an object. I’m sure you may be right about that. I simply don’t remember it.
> It was revealed to be so in your interview. bIQtIqDaq vIjaH. He also revealed that leng can take a destination as its object.
> 
> 
> 
>> If you want to call these “locative verbs”, go for it. I don’t see a problem with that. I see it as neither better or worse than “verbs of motion”. Both descriptors are incomplete,
> "Locative verbs" is not incomplete. It is simply a shorter version of the phrase Okrand himself used in TKD: "verbs whose meanings include locative notions." I put it in scare quotes to note that it is not a term used by Okrand.
> 
> "Verbs of motion," on the other hand, is incomplete and misleading, however, because it does not include verbs whose meanings include locative notions that aren't related to motion, and because it does include verbs whose meanings include motion but do not include locative notions (like Sal).
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190212/b8051ee2/attachment-0002.htm>