In the Saarbrücken qepHom'a' 2019 booklet, Dr. Okrand answered this question about {mej}: Lieven: What is the difference between {mej} "leave" and {tlheD} "depart"? MO: They certainly overlap, but, generally speaking, {tlheD} implies setting out on a journey, having a goal or destination in mind, while {mej} refers simply to leaving one's current location. In both cases, the object is the place you're departing/leaving from. (end of reply) While revising the paq'batlh, in discussing how {mej} is used with Dr. Okrand (the context is p. 163 line 4 in the 1st edition, which said {chalqachlIjvo' bImej...} and which should be {... Damej...}), I brought up the object of {mej}, gave him the existing example of {bIghHa' DamejDI' pagh QaS yInob} "Get out of jail free" (or literally, "when you leave jail, give zero troops") from Klingon Monopoly, and asked whether {-vo'} is necessary on {chalqachlIj[vo'] Damej...}. Here's what he wrote back: MO:
Good catch. Both ways are okay, but the {-vo’} is not needed here.
{mej} without {-vo’} implies you’re no longer in a place where you’ve been. (You were in jail, but now you’re not.) {mej} with {-vo’} is used when the place you’re leaving from (the place with the {-vo’}) is a starting point. You intend to journey from that point to some other point. (“The hikers left from the trailhead” suggests they began their hike on the trail. If you said “the hikers left the trailhead” — no {-vo’} — they may or may not have started hiking on the trail. Maybe they just got hungry and went home.) In addition to the {chalqachlIjvo’} example you cite, the paq’batlh has examples of {mej} with and without a preceding {-vo’}: (a) {lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’} “you left from the gates” (p. 193, line 11). Kahless didn’t really spend any time at the gates — he went right through/past them and made it into Gre’thor without being harmed (well, he had to trick Fek’lhr, so it’s not like he did nothing). So Kotar is saying that Kahless got into Gre’thor from Gre’thor’s starting point so to speak (the gates), not that he escaped from the gates or something like that. So {-vo’} makes sense here. (b) {ghe’tor Da’elmo’ ’ej Damejmo’} “because you entered and left Gre’thor} (p. 195, line 26) Here there’s no place noun immediately preceding {Damejmo’}, but if there were (and there certainly could be), it would be {ghe’tor}, not {ghe’torvo’}. Kahless was in Gre’thor for a bit and then he wasn’t anymore — he left. So no {-vo’} is needed. The “to {-vo’} or not to {-vo’}” distinction isn’t as clear-cut as I may have made it sound. It’s subtle. You can be in a place for a while and then leave it and start your journey from that point. In many (most?) situations, you could use it or not and still be fine. But as a rule of thumb: If the focus is on not being somewhere anymore, no need for {-vo’}; if the focus is on starting from a certain place towards a certain path or goal, {-vo’} makes that clear. (end of message) So, to summarise: {tlheD} - implies a goal or destination {mej} without {-vo'} - just leaving a place {mej} with {-vo'} - the place marked with {-vo'} is a starting point -- De'vID