<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt,
especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that
you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations
where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’
jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have
to be specific about who I cause to fight.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special
case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct
object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow
(a course)”. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It's not really a special case. <b>ghoS</b> doesn't imply a
direct object any more than <b>Suv</b> implies a direct object,
and you did not hesitate to write <b>jISuvmoH.</b><br>
</p>
<p>When you do not include an object on a verb that could take one,
it's understood that the verb is acting on a vague, general
object. That object is NOT syntactically part of the sentence. <b>jISuv</b><i>
I fight.</i> Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but
obviously I'm fighting someone or something.</p>
<p>This is no different with <b>ghoS.</b> The given translation is
made very explicit because <i>go</i> is insufficient for an
English speaker to understand the connection between <b>ghoS</b>
and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's
grammatically no different to <b>ghoS</b> something than it is to
<b>Suv</b> something. <b>ghoS</b> is a perfectly normal word.
It's just not equivalent to just one English word, so explaining
it takes some time. But once you know what it is, it's simple and
unremarkable.</p>
<p>Please understand the difference between the existence of an
object and the existence of an entity that would be an object if
the entity were mentioned. <i>Object</i> is a syntactic role of a
word in a sentence. If a word does not appear in a sentence, it
has no syntactic role in that sentence. If <b>jIghoS,</b> then
the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the
sentence.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com">
<div class="">In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the
special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move
around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It
ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct
object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct
object any location associated with the course. It could be the
starting point, or the target, or just some location along the
way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit
mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb
{ghoS} is meaningless without a course.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the
interview. He gave no such absolutes. <b>ghoS</b> is the act of
following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent
in the action, <i>but there is no syntactic requirement for a
course to be listed.</i> Just as <b>Suv</b> implies some kind
of fight occurring, even if you don't syntactically have to
mention any fight. The word itself contains the meaning you're
discussing. No, <b>ghoS</b> doesn't always have an implied object
of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. <b>ghoS</b>
means <i>follow a course</i> all by itself.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com">
<div class=""> Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}.
It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and
{vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh}
imply moving along a specific path.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq
jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem
that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he
clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course
associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m
in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit
identification of what that course might be.”</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these
verbs makes a distinction between <b>juH vIghoS</b> and <b>juHDaq
jIghoS,</b> but it's not actually deducible just from the
grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were
perfectly able to analyze <b>juH vIghoS</b> and <b>juHDaq jIghoS</b>
as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to
change this.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com">I think he
even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that
you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><b>juHDaq vIghoS</b> can mean <i>I follow it (a course) at home,
</i>or it can mean <i>I go home.</i> For the latter, the <b>-Daq</b>
on <b>juH</b> would be considered redundant and unnecessary, but
not out-and-out wrong. There is no actual prohibition on putting
type 5 suffixes on objects — the example in TKD 3.5.5 actually
does this — and this is a case where you can do so, even if doing
so makes Klingons look at you funny.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1454E92E-4179-45C5-B283-4B8999529CFB@mac.com">Klingons
usually have a reason for using a suffix.</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You're about to indulge in what I think of as an "a Klingon would
never" argument. I don't usually find them productive for
understanding the grammar. They're useful for asking how a Klingon
would respond to something, but not in understanding the rules.<br>
</p>
<p><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>