tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 08 20:17:48 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajlo'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jajlo'
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:17:45 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:16:10 -0700 (PDT) "Q'ISto'va (Eliseo
d'Annunzio, Esq.)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
> > Can {Qong} take an object?
This is a decidedly uninteresting question. Until we have some
sort of canon example showing the relationship between this verb
and its object, we have no basis for any transitive translation.
We have no common context from which one person can symbolize a
thought and the other can interpret the symbol. If the TKD
definition implies an object and suggests what kind of object,
it can be transitive (as in {SaH}="care about"). If we have have
canon revealing transitivity we did not initially expect (like
{Dub}, which has only appeared transitively in canon, even
though most of us expected it to be intransitive).
Meanwhile, taking a word that has a definition that strongly
suggests it is intransitive and that has several intransitive
canon examples with no transitive examples (like {Qong}) and
daydreaming about whether or not it might be transitive...
"Vague, wittering and indecisive"!
charghwI'