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?
I am describing "the principle by which I think it works."
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.)
ghoS works the way it does because it is one of those
verbs described in TKD that imparts an inherently locative sense
to its object. We have no evidence that chol is one of
those verbs, and the given translation does not suggest an object.
My only assumption is that a verb is not an inherently locative
verb unless we have a reason to think that it is.
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).
I'm not sure why everyone is trying to turn my suggestion into a
general rule or apply it to other verbs. I only suggested
something for the verb chol, and illustrated something
similar, but not identical, in the verb Sum.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name