tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 14 21:05:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KGT
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KGT
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 04:05:03 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> I think it's ok - I'd understand it. Perhaps *yIghuHmoH!* would be better
> for "Warning!".
That would be "cause to be alerted!" What he means is {yIghuH} "be alerted!"
> ghuH = prepare for, be alerted to - needs an object, yes?
Can take an object, but doesn't need one. {jIghuH} means "I am prepared for
(things in general)."
> ghuHmoH = alert, OR lit. cause someone or something to be alerted to or
> prepared for... needs agent AND object!?!?!
I'm not sure how charghwI' sees this one. I might say something like {yIHvaD
qaghuHmoH} "I alert you to the tribble." "I cause you to be alerted (to
things in general), and then apply that to tribbles."
Perhaps charghwI' would see it as {SoHvaD yIH vIghuHmoH} "I
cause-to-be-alerted-to the tribble. I do this for you."
Either one makes sense, really. However, any time I come across a concept
like this, I just break it up or recast it.
qaghuHmoHmo' yIH Dalegh.
> Is it OK to use -moH on such an inherently transitive verb, and not use a
> proper object,
I don't think Klingon has anything that could be called an inherently
transitive verb, though I might argue that we have some inherently
*intransitive* verbs. We've gotten a few examples of these in KGT.
> as in Duncan's example above? If ghuH was an either/or verb
> like Sop or yaj, it would be clear. But would this _require_ an object?
Remember the "things in general" concept. Grammatically, there's no
difference in Klingon between the English sentences "I eat" and "I eat things
in general."
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97621.3