> I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that we look at Sum

> and mimic its grammar. I've given the principle by which I think it works

> and pointing to Sum to illustrate something similar.

I did misunderstand. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.

taH:

> The principle is this: -Daq tells you the location at which the verb occurs,

> not, in this case, the destination of the action. When we think of coming

> closer, we tend to think in terms of being the moving entity heading

> toward the destination. I'm suggesting that we may have that backwards:

> we should think in terms of being the stationary entity, watching the

> moving entity coming closer to us.

When you say "we should think...", are you pondering, or prescribing?

The rest of your perspective makes good internal sense. I can't fault it. (On the other hand, I can't see there are fewer assumptions being made whether one treats chol like Sum, or like ghoS.)

jatlhpu' charghwI', jatlh:

> SuStel’s suggestion would work for either {Sum} or {ghoS}. Your

> suggestion works with {ghoS}, but not {Sum}.

I agree my suggestion doesn't work with Sum (though the nature of the verb precludes that anyway), but with respect, I'm not sure SuStel's suggestion does quite work for ghoS either, because of the dual manner in which X-Daq ghoS Y works depending on whether X-Daq triggers object-agreement. An objectless usage (like the one SuStel suggests for yuQDaq chol Duj) can only ever mean "the ship is going on the planet", and not "the ship is going to the planet", when applied to ghoS, though the distinction is only overt in the plural: yuQDaq lughoS Dujmey "the ships are going to the planet" (-Daq destination), yuQDaq ghoS Dujmey "the ships are going on the planet" (-Daq location).

QeS 'utlh