<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">SuStel:</div><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid rgb(200, 200, 200); border-top-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); border-right-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); border-bottom-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); padding-left: 10px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif;display:inline !important">And by the way, the gloss of<span> </span></span><b style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif">ghoS</b><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif;display:inline !important"><span> </span>also includes "go away from." I have no doubt that you could say things like<span> </span></span><b style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif">bIQtIqvo' vIghoS</b><i style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif"><span> </span>I go away from the river.</i><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif;display:inline !important"><span> </span></span><b style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif">ghoS</b><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:"Inter var", system-ui, sans-serif;display:inline !important"><span> </span>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.</span><br></div></blockquote><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"></span><span style="display: inline !important;"><br></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">Is there evidence that <b>ghoS</b> can add the ablative meaning to its object? <b>ghoS</b> is used tens of times in canon and every time its object doesn't have any type-5 suffix it means "go (to)".</span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><br></span></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial">When <b>ghoS</b> is used to mean "go away from", it has <b>-vo'</b>:</font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><br></font></div><blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid rgb(200, 200, 200); border-top-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); border-right-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); border-bottom-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); padding-left: 10px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><b><span>chaH</span> <span>neH</span> <span>wovmoHlu'be'<br></span></b></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><b><span>chaH</span> <span>'emvo'</span> ghoS<br></b></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><b><span>SuvwI'pu'</span> <span>mangghom</span> </b><span><b>yoH</b><br></span></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><br></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><i>The sun shone not on them only,<br></i></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><i>Behind them came<br></i></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><i>An army of brave warriors.<br></i></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial"><br></font></div><div style=""><font color="#222222" face="arial">(paq'batlh)</font></div></blockquote><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"></span><font color="#222222" face="arial"><br></font></div><div style="">Based on the evidence we have I don't think we can say that a nominative object could have an ablative meaning. I think the definition just means that in some contexts (ie. when <b>-vo'</b> is used), the verb can be translated with "go away from".</div><div style=""><br></div><div style="">Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio</div><div class="protonmail_quote">
------- Original Message -------<br>
On Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 at 17.41, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/25/2022 10:18 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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">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">
<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 cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
SuStel
<a href="http://trimboli.name" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</blockquote><br>
</div>