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

[SuStel]

On 2/12/2019 8:39 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> Certainly, the difficult part of understanding {ghoS} and its ilk has 
> more to do with understanding what kind of objects it takes, since it 
> is unlike English to have a verb that has this sense of intentionality 
> wrapped up in it. I suspect that it has a similar character to the 
> difference between {-pu’} and {-ta’}. {jaH} means “go” with no 
> reference to the direction or manner or intent of the going, while 
> {ghoS} implies following a specific course or path. You plan {ghoS} 
> and as you {ghoS} you are executing the plan.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Aside from being a 
"locative verb," a verb whose object includes a locative concept, there 
is nothing special about *ghoS.* It refers to following a course or 
path. The course or path is its object. That's it. There's nothing about 
intentionality there. If you're tied to an out-of-control wheelchair 
rolling downhill down a road, you still *ghoS* that road.

As for *jaH:* it /does/ make reference to the direction of the going. 
*jaH* is also one of these verbs that includes a locative concept, only 
instead of the course, the object is a locative indicating the 
destination. We learned that *jaH* is a "locative verb" in your 
interview with Okrand, a fact we could not glean from its TKD definition.

The defining characteristic of "locative verbs" is that their objects 
are locatives without being marked as locatives. That's why if you do 
add the locative suffix, you don't change the meaning. It's redundant.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190212/810ad0b3/attachment-0015.htm>