<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 8:39 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B00C450D-FD86-41CC-AF97-25D0E73792EE@mac.com">Certainly,
the difficult part of understanding {ghoS} and its ilk has more to
do with understanding what kind of objects it takes, since it is
unlike English to have a verb that has this sense of
intentionality wrapped up in it. I suspect that it has a similar
character to the difference between {-pu’} and {-ta’}. {jaH} means
“go” with no reference to the direction or manner or intent of the
going, while {ghoS} implies following a specific course or path.
You plan {ghoS} and as you {ghoS} you are executing the plan.</blockquote>
<p>I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Aside from
being a "locative verb," a verb whose object includes a locative
concept, there is nothing special about <b>ghoS.</b> It refers to
following a course or path. The course or path is its object.
That's it. There's nothing about intentionality there. If you're
tied to an out-of-control wheelchair rolling downhill down a road,
you still <b>ghoS</b> that road.<br>
</p>
<p>As for <b>jaH:</b> it <i>does</i> make reference to the
direction of the going. <b>jaH</b> is also one of these verbs
that includes a locative concept, only instead of the course, the
object is a locative indicating the destination. We learned that <b>jaH</b>
is a "locative verb" in your interview with Okrand, a fact we
could not glean from its TKD definition.</p>
<p>The defining characteristic of "locative verbs" is that their
objects are locatives without being marked as locatives. That's
why if you do add the locative suffix, you don't change the
meaning. It's redundant.<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>