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

[D qunen'oS]

ghunchu'wI':
> The object of {Damejta'} in this sentence is {ghe'tor}. Don't try to read
> so much into something when you aren't paying attention to the context.

Ok, you got me. Indeed, I payed no attention to the context, because
Klingon crap sickens me. As simple as that. I just couldn't care less
about what qeylIS did or didn't do, about the gates of ghe''or, about
molor, or anything related.

As far as I'm concerned, the questions after all this are simply these two:

1. If we want to talk about leaving a place which is considered to be
a starting point, then does the starting point which has been marked
by the {-vo'} need to be the object of the verb or not? Do we say
{juHvo' vImejpu'} or {juHvo' jImejpu'}?
2. Does the info which regards {mej} and its' use with {-vo'} apply
for {tlhej} as well?

As far as the first question goes, I think that since 'oqranD has
already said that the place one's leaving or departing from is the
object, and then elaborated on which is the case where we'd use {-vo'}
as well, then putting two and two together, the conclusion must be
that the {-vo}'ed noun must still be the object. In the message shared
by De'vID, 'oqranD didn't change anything he previously had said; he
just added something new.

Personally, I'd prefer it if this wasn't the case, and we just needed
to write {juHvo' jImejpu'}, for the simple reason that that's how we
do it in Greek. But -speaking for myself- I think that if I did it
that way, I'd break the rule about the place one's leaving or
departing from needing to be the object.

Thinking about the second question, I think that all this goes for
{tlheD} as well, for the simple reason that 'oqranD wrote "if the
focus is on starting from a certain place towards a certain path or
goal, {-vo’} makes that clear". So -as we say on Vulcan- logic
dictates that since one can use {tlheD} too and still be able to focus
on "starting from a certain place", then someone can/must use the
{-vo'} as in the case of {mej}.

Of course, all this is just my opinion, and as usual we need to break
out the ouija board to find out what it is that 'oqranD actually
means/wants/instructs. And on second thought ouija board isn't enough
on its' own; apparently what is needed is a whole divination ritual.

Also, I'd like to add that 'oqranD has the habit of using examples
where the verb prefixes don't make clear how things work. Perhaps
someone should bring to his attention that we'd be saved much trouble
speculating, if he avoided doing that.

But on the other hand, how would we then practice our divination
skills? Yeah, that must be it..

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ