[tlhIngan Hol] {mej} with and without {-vo'}

[SuStel]

On 5/25/2022 10:18 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> I noticed the same thing. It is strange to have the prefix suggest an 
> object that has a Type 5 suffix (except {-‘e’} because, hey, {-'e’} is 
> soooo exceptional). It’s more typical to say {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} or 
> {bIQtIq vIghoS} than {bIQtIqDaq vIghoS}.

The object of the verb *ghoS* is the course being followed, possibly a 
course identified by its destination. That is, its object is already 
locative anyway, so there is no reason one /couldn't/ add a *-Daq* to 
it. As TKD says, doing this is a little redundant, but not wrong. When a 
verb makes its object locative, adding the locative suffix doesn't 
change anything at all about the sentence.

And by the way, the gloss of *ghoS* also includes "go away from." I have 
no doubt that you could say things like *bIQtIqvo' vIghoS*/I go away 
from the river./ *ghoS* can impart an ablative meaning to its object 
instead of a locative meaning, so we should not be surprised if adding 
the ablative suffix to the object has no effect on the sentence besides 
being redundant.

This idea that objects should never have type 5 suffixes on them except 
for *-'e'* because it's exceptional and except for *-Daq* on certain 
verbs because the verbs are exceptional is a kludge made up by us, not 
Okrand. A more accurate "rule" would be that type 5 noun suffixes can go 
on any subject or object provided the verb supports 
locative/ablative/benefactive/causative/focus nouns in those positions. 
The role of focus is universal. A bunch of verbs support a locative 
object. A couple appear to support an ablative object. We know of none 
that support benefactive or causative objects or or any sort of subject 
other than a focus noun.

The rule is not that subjects and objects cannot take type 5 suffixes; 
the rule is that nouns that aren't subject or objects come before the 
object and usually have type 5 suffixes. (Examples of nouns that aren't 
subject or object and don't have type 5 suffixes are time expressions.) 
There is no prohibition on putting type 5'd nouns on subjects or 
objects, and we're explicitly given instances where *-Daq* (and now 
*-vo'*) go on objects.


> Sure, you can do it. It’s just weird, even if Okrand does it.

Only if you presume a rule that TKD doesn't actually state. This is one 
of those "we made ourselves think this way" things.


> One might expect a parallel between the use of {-Daq} with its special 
> verbs and {-vo’} with its special verbs.

The verbs are only special in that their objects are locations. You 
*ghoS* a location because *ghoS* is all about acting upon a location, so 
it's really not surprising when you put the location marker on the 
location you *ghoS.*


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220525/1910eaf8/attachment.htm>