tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 02 15:23:10 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitivity
ghItlh charghwI':
>> Anyways, the main point of this post is that using an object-less prefix
on a
>> verb that normally takes an object is a good way of indicating an
>> *indefinite* object. It parallels to the way {-lu'} indicates an
indefinite
>> subject.
>This is the one point in this post I don't follow. Could you
>give us a hint of a reference to some canon? It is a new
>thought for me.
Without my KD at the moment I can't give the exact section and page like I
normally would, but I believe there is some comment on it in the section
introducing the verbal prefixes. It gives the distinction that {jIyaj} can be
used to mean "I understand (things in general)", but not if the speaker means
to say that he/she/it understands something specific, like a person or a
language. Similarly, {maSop} indicates a general act of eating, but it can't
be used if a specific food is mentioned. That's simply what I meant by
'indefinite objects'.
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos