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