tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 29 16:40:56 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: Question (was Re: bIjatlh 'e' yImev)


On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:

> jabbI'IDwIj yIlaD
> 
> lI'ta' charghwI'
> > 
> > My problem with this attempt is the word choice {jeS}, which
> > means "participate", not "participate in". It strikes me as a
> > rather intransitive verb. Your sentence literally translates
> > into the two sentences:
> > 
> > "Maltz and Mara play ball. Worf participates that."
> > 
> > See? Doesn't that sound rather awkward? Furthermore, "play
> > ball" is probably a little too idiomatic to presume that it
> > translates well. We do not know that {Quj} exhibits
> > transitivity in this specific way.
> > 
> I always thought that the omission of obvious Prepositions
> in TKD meant that you can use the verb both ways, i.e.
> bIjeSqang'a' means Do you want to participate (in whatever
> we are doing) while one had to say DajeSqang'a' if a
> specific action is being talked about. I thought
> that's the consequence of p.34 (the example of maSop).
> 
> So if I see, e.g. DoH = get away from, I assume an
> object is required, if I see toS = climb (klettern)
> I assume I can say matoS (wir klettern -> no Prep)
> as well as nagh matoS (wir klettern AUF den Felsen)
> (sorry I was unable to find an english example -
> what is an "object" in english can be accusativ-,
> dativ-, genitiv- or prepositional object in german)

Note:  it should be {nagh wItoS}.

That is an interesting way to look at it.  And perhaps you are right.
I think the best way to think about Klingon verbs, is not whether they 
are transitive or intransitive, but whether they are active or stative.
Okrand himself uses these terms to describe Klingon verbs.

Verbs which describe an action could take objects or not.  Verbs which 
describe a state or condition would not take objects.

Using this definition, a verb, like {jeS} since it is active, would be 
able to an object if needed.

> however the noun-noun construction is supposed 
> to be possessiv, while "another one of the children"
> would be considered 'genitivus partitivus' as in
> 'a buck of gold, a glass of wine' a.s.o.
> 
> is it o.k. to use NNC in this manner then?

I think it is okay to use the noun-noun construction this way.  We have 
the canon example {no'lI' Hoch} (all of your ancestors) which I think is 
an example of this.

> 			Marc Doychlangan

yoDtargh

Back to archive top level