On 11/21/2016 1:34 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
You can either say ghe''orvo' jInarghpu' I escaped from Grethor or ghe''or vInarghpu' I escaped Grethor. hmm.. now I started to wonder.. walk with me..
bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIjaH the "going" takes place at the shore
bIQ'a' HeH vIjaH I am going to the shore
bIQ'a' HeHDaq vIjaH I am going to the shore (same as above, with the {-Daq} being unnecessary but not wrong)
if the above are correct, and the {nargh} "to escape" is to be treated as a verb of movement, then why not: {ghe''orvo' vInarghpu'} ?
I don't think *nargh* is a verb of movement. But even if it were, notice the difference between *-Daq* and *-vo'*: *-Daq* has two senses: /going//to/ a place or /being//at/ a place. *-vo'* has only one sense: /going from/ a place. It doesn't seem to have a corresponding meaning of /being away from/ a place. When you say *vaS'a'Daq jIjaH,* the special rules of verbs of motion mean you're forced to pick just one of the usual *-Daq* meanings: /being at/ a place. This makes it mean something like, /at the Great Hall, I go./ But *jaH* can also take an object that represents the destination. *vaS'a' vIjaH* /I go to the Great Hall./ The/to/ meaning is inherent to the verb. So adding *-Daq* to that noun doesn't change the inherent /to/ of the verb, forcing you into the meaning of /to /a place. The reason you can add *-Daq* to the object of such words, even though that doesn't seem to happen with other words, is that the /to/ is already built in. You're just making explicit what comes inherently with the verb. But *-vo'* does not seem to be inherent in verbs of motion, at least not as Okrand presented them. When he was describing the verb *leng,* he gave us *yuQ vIlegh* and *yuQDaq vIlegh* /I travel to the planet,/*yuQvo' jIleng*/I roam away from the planet,/ and *yuQDaq jIleng*/I roam around/about the planet./ He conspicuously doesn't give us **yuQvo' vIleng.* His example *yuQvo' jIleng* apparently doesn't mean /I roam in a place away from the planet./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name