<div dir="ltr"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><p style="font-size:12.8px"><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b> is considered redundant because the object of <b>jaH</b> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you <b>jaH</b> is something you're <b>jaH</b>-ing <i>to.</i></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">There is no inherent "away from" sense to <b>jaH,</b> so <b>juHvo' vIjaH</b> is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.</p></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">section 3.3.5., p28)</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">{jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">@mayqel</span></div><div class="gmail_default">Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't think it's inherently wrong, but there might be a shade of nuance in the meaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}. </div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} would insist more on the fact that you're <u>specifically </u>going AWAY from the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going somewhere, which happens to be outside/ away from the house".</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">That's just my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would understand it differently.</div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div class="m_-1368413231580930659moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">juHDaq
vIjaH
<div dir="auto">I go to the house</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">juHDaq jIjaH</div>
<div dir="auto">The going takes place in the vicinity of the house</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">juHvo' jIjaH</div>
<div dir="auto">I am going away from the house</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the
last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH},
then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules,
or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is
unnecessary/redundant ?</div>
</blockquote>
</span><p><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b> is considered redundant because the object of
<b>jaH</b> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you <b>jaH</b>
is something you're <b>jaH</b>-ing <i>to.</i></p>
<p>There is no inherent "away from" sense to <b>jaH,</b> so <b>juHvo'
vIjaH</b> is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright
disallowed.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I bet <b>jaghvo' vIDoH</b> is considered a
redundant form of <b>jagh vIDoH</b> for a very similar reason. In
fact, I believe the "verbs of motion" are not special because they
describe motion, but because their objects have inherent syntactic
roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any similar verbs would do
likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you could find a
verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet <i><b>N</b></i><b>mo'
vI<i>V</i></b> would be considered just as redundant.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<pre class="m_-1368413231580930659moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="m_-1368413231580930659moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>