<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 2/12/2019 9:37 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C0D2E692-4755-4DBA-8166-6DA942E8743E@mac.com">
<div class="">In the interview, Okrand said that adding the {-Daq}
WOULD change the meaning. His example was being in a boat on a
river. {-Daq} applies to the boat. The object of {ghoS} is the
river.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, he said that adding <b>-Daq</b> <i>to the object</i> would
not change the meaning, only make the sentence redundant. I'm not
talking about adding a locative with <b>-Daq</b> on it before the
object.</p>
<p><b>Duj vIjaH</b><i> I go to the ship.</i></p>
<p><b>DujDaq vIjaH</b><i> I go to the ship (redundant).</i></p>
<p><b>DujDaq jIjaH</b><i> While I'm on the ship, I go somewhere (on
the ship).</i><br>
</p>
<p>In the first two, <b>Duj(Daq)</b> is the object. In the last
one, it is not. What Okrand was saying is that when you've got a
verb that includes a locative notion, the object of that verb is
the locative, and any locative added before the object cannot
duplicate the meaning of the object.</p>
<p>So with <b>Duj vIjaH,</b> the object <b>Duj</b> indicates the
destination <i>("to" the ship.)</i> If I say <b>DujDaq jIjaH,</b>
the <b>DujDaq </b>is a locative that cannot mean <i>to the
ship,</i> because that meaning is inherent in the verb's object,
but it can mean any of the other possible meanings of <b>-Daq:</b>
<i>on the ship, in the ship, by the ship, at the ship.</i> It just
can't mean <i>to the ship.</i></p>
<p><i></i><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C0D2E692-4755-4DBA-8166-6DA942E8743E@mac.com">
<div class="">I don’t remember {jaH} having an object. I’m sure
you may be right about that. I simply don’t remember it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It was revealed to be so in your interview. <b>bIQtIqDaq vIjaH.</b>
He also revealed that <b>leng</b> can take a destination as its
object.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C0D2E692-4755-4DBA-8166-6DA942E8743E@mac.com">
<div class="">If you want to call these “locative verbs”, go for
it. I don’t see a problem with that. I see it as neither better
or worse than “verbs of motion”. Both descriptors are
incomplete,</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"Locative verbs" is not incomplete. It is simply a shorter
version of the phrase Okrand himself used in TKD: "verbs whose
meanings include locative notions." I put it in scare quotes to
note that it is not a term used by Okrand.<br>
</p>
<p>"Verbs of motion," on the other hand, is incomplete and
misleading, however, because it does not include verbs whose
meanings include locative notions that aren't related to motion,
and because it does include verbs whose meanings include motion
but do not include locative notions (like <b>Sal</b>).<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>