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

[SuStel]

On 2/12/2019 11:47 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> 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.

I don't think a semantic versus syntax argument is really the issue here.


> 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.

Not quite. We don't have to mark it grammatically with *-Daq,* and if we 
do mark it with *-Daq* we potentially confuse the reader or listener as 
to whether we're talking about an object or a noun in the pre-object 
position.

If I say *DujDaq ghoStaH,* I know whether I mean that the subject is 
approaching the ship or on the ship and approaching, but the meaning is 
ambiguous to anyone else. The role of *DujDaq* doesn't change; it's just 
ambiguous.

Such ambiguities happen all the time, though, and shouldn't cause us 
worry. Context will make the correct meaning clear. And often 
probability will play a role. It's /possible/ to interpret *DujDaq 
vIghoStaH* as /I am on the ship, approaching it/ (an elided *'oH* /it/ 
as object), but it's unlikely I'm going to elide the object in this way 
if the chance of misunderstanding is high. *DujDaq 'oH vIghoStaH.*


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190212/9aa164eb/attachment-0015.htm>