On 2/12/2019 11:47 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’m guessing we disagree less than you think we do. Likely, it would help anyone interested in understanding this that the object of these unusual verbs is a noun whose location is its important feature. This is, as you like to point out, a semantic issue, not a grammatical one.
I don't think a semantic versus syntax argument is really the issue here.
We understand that the object of {ghoS} and its ilk is a location. We don’t have to mark it grammatically with {-Daq}, and if we do mark it with {-Daq}, we potentially give the noun a role that is not the object of the verb.
Not quite. We don't have to mark it grammatically with *-Daq,* and if we do mark it with *-Daq* we potentially confuse the reader or listener as to whether we're talking about an object or a noun in the pre-object position. If I say *DujDaq ghoStaH,* I know whether I mean that the subject is approaching the ship or on the ship and approaching, but the meaning is ambiguous to anyone else. The role of *DujDaq* doesn't change; it's just ambiguous. Such ambiguities happen all the time, though, and shouldn't cause us worry. Context will make the correct meaning clear. And often probability will play a role. It's /possible/ to interpret *DujDaq vIghoStaH* as /I am on the ship, approaching it/ (an elided *'oH* /it/ as object), but it's unlikely I'm going to elide the object in this way if the chance of misunderstanding is high. *DujDaq 'oH vIghoStaH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name