<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/25/2022 10:18 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B23C0F59-E5CB-4A73-8D46-87AB4CC413DF@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">I noticed the same thing. It is strange to have the
prefix suggest an object that has a Type 5 suffix (except {-‘e’}
because, hey, {-'e’} is soooo exceptional). It’s more typical to
say {bIQtIqDaq jIghoS} or {bIQtIq vIghoS} than {bIQtIqDaq
vIghoS}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The object of the verb <b>ghoS</b> is the course being followed,
possibly a course identified by its destination. That is, its
object is already locative anyway, so there is no reason one <i>couldn't</i>
add a <b>-Daq</b> to it. As TKD says, doing this is a little
redundant, but not wrong. When a verb makes its object locative,
adding the locative suffix doesn't change anything at all about
the sentence.</p>
<p>And by the way, the gloss of <b>ghoS</b> also includes "go away
from." I have no doubt that you could say things like <b>bIQtIqvo'
vIghoS</b><i> I go away from the river.</i> <b>ghoS</b> can
impart an ablative meaning to its object instead of a locative
meaning, so we should not be surprised if adding the ablative
suffix to the object has no effect on the sentence besides being
redundant.</p>
<p>This idea that objects should never have type 5 suffixes on them
except for <b>-'e'</b> because it's exceptional and except for <b>-Daq</b>
on certain verbs because the verbs are exceptional is a kludge
made up by us, not Okrand. A more accurate "rule" would be that
type 5 noun suffixes can go on any subject or object provided the
verb supports locative/ablative/benefactive/causative/focus nouns
in those positions. The role of focus is universal. A bunch of
verbs support a locative object. A couple appear to support an
ablative object. We know of none that support benefactive or
causative objects or or any sort of subject other than a focus
noun.</p>
<p>The rule is not that subjects and objects cannot take type 5
suffixes; the rule is that nouns that aren't subject or objects
come before the object and usually have type 5 suffixes. (Examples
of nouns that aren't subject or object and don't have type 5
suffixes are time expressions.) There is no prohibition on putting
type 5'd nouns on subjects or objects, and we're explicitly given
instances where <b>-Daq</b> (and now <b>-vo'</b>) go on objects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B23C0F59-E5CB-4A73-8D46-87AB4CC413DF@gmail.com">Sure,
you can do it. It’s just weird, even if Okrand does it.</blockquote>
<p>Only if you presume a rule that TKD doesn't actually state. This
is one of those "we made ourselves think this way" things.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B23C0F59-E5CB-4A73-8D46-87AB4CC413DF@gmail.com">
<div class="">One might expect a parallel between the use of
{-Daq} with its special verbs and {-vo’} with its special verbs.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The verbs are only special in that their objects are locations.
You <b>ghoS</b> a location because <b>ghoS</b> is all about
acting upon a location, so it's really not surprising when you put
the location marker on the location you <b>ghoS.</b></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>