[110390] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using object prefix with {-vo'}

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Aug 9 09:26:49 2017

X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:26:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cL+q2w6FyZB39YD+7VvTE4n-2jE5aERV3su7KgU+uFQ4g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============5071114613790467934==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------A25C074232B404B3195283FA"
Content-Language: en-US

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A25C074232B404B3195283FA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 /*N*/*mo' vI/V/* would be considered just as redundant.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name


--------------A25C074232B404B3195283FA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2017 8:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cL+q2w6FyZB39YD+7VvTE4n-2jE5aERV3su7KgU+uFQ4g@mail.gmail.com">juHDaq
      vIjaH
      <div dir="auto">I go to the house</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">juHDaq jIjaH</div>
      <div dir="auto">The going takes place in the vicinity of the house</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">juHvo' jIjaH</div>
      <div dir="auto">I am going away from the house</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">We have said that when using the {-vo'}, as in the
        last example, we always use a prefix indicating no-object.</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">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 ?</div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><b>juHDaq vIjaH</b> is considered redundant because the object of
      <b>jaH</b> inherently includes a locative sense. Anything you <b>jaH</b>
      is something you're <b>jaH</b>-ing <i>to.</i></p>
    <p>There is no inherent "away from" sense to <b>jaH,</b> so <b>juHvo'
        vIjaH</b> is probably an awkward phrase, if not downright
      disallowed.</p>
    <p>On the other hand, I bet <b>jaghvo' vIDoH</b> is considered a
      redundant form of <b>jagh vIDoH</b> 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 <i><b>N</b></i><b>mo'
        vI<i>V</i></b> would be considered just as redundant.<br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
  </body>
</html>

--------------A25C074232B404B3195283FA--

--===============5071114613790467934==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============5071114613790467934==--

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post