juHDaq vIjaH is considered redundant because the object of jaH inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you jaH is something you're jaH-ing to.
There is no inherent "away from" sense to jaH, so juHvo' vIjaH is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.

On the other hand, the Klingon Dictionary uses the below examples:

{pa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the room.> (section 3.3.5., p27)

{pa'vo' yIjaH} <Leave the room!> (section 3.3.5., p28)

{jolpa'Daq yIjaH} <Go to the transport room!> (section 7.1, p73)

So it seems ok and cannon to use -Daq and -vo' suffixes along with <jaH>.

@mayqel

Regarding {juHvo' vIjaH}, I don't think it's inherently wrong, but there might be a shade of nuance in the meaning compared with {juHvo' jIjaH}.

Perhaps {juHvo' vIjaH} would insist more on the fact that you're specifically going AWAY from the house, whereas {juHvo' jIjaH} would just mean "going somewhere, which happens to be outside/ away from the house".

That's just my personal feeling though, perhaps other people would understand it differently.

2017-08-09 15:26 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

juHDaq vIjaH
I go to the house

juHDaq jIjaH

The going takes place in the vicinity of the house

juHvo' jIjaH

I am going away from the house

We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.

But I wonder.. If we did write {juHvo' vIjaH}, then would it be considered wrong ? Does it violate any rules, or is it just that using a prefix indicating an object is unnecessary/redundant ?

juHDaq vIjaH is considered redundant because the object of jaH inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you jaH is something you're jaH-ing to.

There is no inherent "away from" sense to jaH, so juHvo' vIjaH is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright disallowed.

On the other hand, I bet jaghvo' vIDoH is considered a redundant form of jagh vIDoH for a very similar reason. In fact, I believe the "verbs of motion" are not special because they describe motion, but because their objects have inherent syntactic roles that are reproduced by suffixes. Any similar verbs would do likewise, even if they don't describe motion. If you could find a verb whose object is inherently causative, I bet Nmo' vIV would be considered just as redundant.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org