<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/21/2016 1:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLFF_fvPFFrONoUEjSz95-bh=PF+eoMVN+mfzDhfR_ZBw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me..
bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH
the "going" takes place at the shore
bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH
I am going to the shore
bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH
I am going to the shore
(same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong)
if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated
as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think <b>nargh</b> is a verb of movement. But even if it
were, notice the difference between <b>-Daq</b> and <b>-vo'</b>:</p>
<p><b>-Daq</b> has two senses: <i>going</i><i> to</i> a place or <i>being</i><i>
at</i> a place. <b>-vo'</b> has only one sense: <i>going from</i>
a place. It doesn't seem to have a corresponding meaning of <i>being
away from</i> a place.</p>
<p>When you say <b>vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,</b> the special rules of verbs
of motion mean you're forced to pick just one of the usual <b>-Daq</b>
meanings: <i>being at</i> a place. This makes it mean something
like, <i>at the Great Hall, I go.</i> But <b>jaH</b> can also
take an object that represents the destination. <b>vaS'a' vIjaH</b>
<i>I go to the Great Hall.</i> The<i> to</i> meaning is inherent
to the verb. So adding <b>-Daq</b> to that noun doesn't change
the inherent <i>to</i> of the verb, forcing you into the meaning
of <i>to </i>a place.<br>
</p>
<p>The reason you can add <b>-Daq</b> to the object of such words,
even though that doesn't seem to happen with other words, is that
the <i>to</i> is already built in. You're just making explicit
what comes inherently with the verb.</p>
<p>But <b>-vo'</b> does not seem to be inherent in verbs of motion,
at least not as Okrand presented them. When he was describing the
verb <b>leng,</b> he gave us <b>yuQ vIlegh</b> and <b>yuQDaq
vIlegh</b> <i>I travel to the planet,</i><b> yuQvo' jIleng</b><i>
I roam away from the planet,</i> and <b>yuQDaq jIleng</b><i> I
roam around/about the planet.</i> He conspicuously doesn't give
us <b>*yuQvo' vIleng.</b> His example <b>yuQvo' jIleng</b>
apparently doesn't mean <i>I roam in a place away from the
planet.</i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>