On 5/26/2022 11:07 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
SuStel:
And by the way, the gloss of*ghoS*also includes "go away from." I have no doubt that you could say things like*bIQtIqvo' vIghoS*/I go away from the river./*ghoS*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.
Is there evidence that *ghoS* can add the ablative meaning to its object? *ghoS* is used tens of times in canon and every time its object doesn't have any type-5 suffix it means "go (to)".
Perhaps you missed the qualifiers I sprinkled in liberally to avoid someone challenging me to prove what I was saying. "I have no doubt." "We should not be surprised if."
When *ghoS* is used to mean "go away from", it has *-vo'*:
*chaH neH wovmoHlu'be' * *chaH 'emvo' ghoS * *SuvwI'pu' mangghom **yoH*
/The sun shone not on them only, / /Behind them came / /An army of brave warriors. /
(paq'batlh)
I believe that every time *ghoS* is used to mean "go away from," it is ambiguous whether the ablative is the object or not. And even if it's not, that just goes along with all those times *jaH* fails to make its locative destination the object.
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 *-vo'* is used), the verb can be translated with "go away from".
I didn't say the evidence shows what I said. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case. The casualness with which *mej* can take a *-vo'* noun as its object doesn't strike me as *mej* being exceptional; it strikes me as a special connotation of something that might not be terribly remarkable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name