[tlhIngan Hol] ghoS and {-vo'}

[Rhona Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
> I want to say "go away from this place" to a number of people.
> I have two options:
> Daqvamvo' yIghoS
> or
> Daqvammo' peghoS

I'm presuming this last is a typo: Daqvammo' → Daqvamvo'.

jangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
> The object of ghoS is a locative, so it probably can't take an ablative
> as its object. Therefore the correct sentence would be Daqvamvo'
> peghoS.

Further on ghoS, from the interview with Marc Okrand published in HolQeD 7:4:

MO: ghoS is a very interesting verb.
WM: Oh boy. Is it. My personal sense of ghoS, just trying to figure out what in the world all those different definition segments are pointing towards, is that ghoS would be to follow a path associated with the direct object.
MO: Yes. That's good. I've never heard it phrased that way, but that's good.
WM: So, typically, the most common thing you'd associate with a path is its destination, but it doesn't have to be. It could be its source. Now, the usage that I've seen most commonly is that we'll use just the noun if it is the destination, but we'll use -vo' on the noun when we are moving away from it. Would that be typical Klingon usage?
MO: Yes. The short answer is yes.

Tangentially, we don't have ghoS attested with a source of travel as direct object (per Will Martin's speculation quoted above), but we do also have it attested with the course or path of travel as direct object:

He chu' yIghoS
"[go on a] new course" (ST3)

Hevetlh wIghoSchugh veH tIn wI'el maH'e'
"that course will take us into the Barrier as well" (ST5 notes)

QeS 'utlh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190614/0fdb4425/attachment.htm>