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