tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 28 13:28:57 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Another idea about {-vo'}
ja' SarrIS:
>What about {Haw'}? It seems to imply {-vo'} in the same way that {ghoS}
>implies {-Daq}.
I disagree. TKD's "flee, get out" doesn't make it sound like {Haw'} wants
to have an object. It's perhaps slightly more natural to "flee from"
something than "flee to", but I don't see {Haw'} as implying a "from" by
default.
>tera' vIHaw'. "I flee from Earth."
>tera'vo' vIHaw'. "I flee from Earth."
These don't work for me.
>tera'vo' jIHaw'. "I flee and my entire flight occurs on Earth."
Even if they did, this one wouldn't imply what you're trying to say.
***
The verb {DoH} "back away from" *does* have a "from" in it, making {-vo'}
redundant in much the same fashion as {-Daq} is with {ghoS}. Perhaps
that's what you were thinking of?
tera' vIDoH. "I get away from Earth."
tera'vo' vIDoH. "I get away from, from Earth."
The second one is definitely redundant, but given the oddness of {-Daq}
with motion-related verbs I'm not rejecting it outright.
tera'vo' jIDoH. "I get away, from Earth."
Nope, it still says to me that the motion is directed away from Earth, not
that it happens there.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh