tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 25 10:03:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Verb prepositional concepts
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:11:11 -0400
ghItlh peHruS:
>Circular reasoning? True. But, SuStel is using circular reasoning, too.
He
>is saying that because {qIm} appears intransitive to him, therefore
{qImHa'}
>MUST follow suit and be intransitive also. SuStel overlooks the FACT that
the
>LATER addition to the vocabulary, {qImHa'}, helps explain {qIm}.
I posted some time ago on this very word. <qIm> is glossed as objectless.
<buS> is so much better as a transitive verb. <buSHa'> is clearly "stop
concentrating on", which is synonymous with "disregard (something)".
<qImHa'> as a transitive verb is redundant. It only makes sense for <qIm> to
be intransitive.
How is it a fact that the gloss for <qImHa'> explains the usage of <qIm>?
Care to prove that it is a fact by providing canonic examples?
The fact is this - it is NOT a fact. This 'chicken-or-the-egg' argument is
futile. The fact is we cannot say with any certainty that <qIm> is
transitive or intransitive. We can CERTAINLY use it as an intransitive verb,
however. The only verbs we can't use intransitively are those specifically
glossed to indicate an object. (If you're going to argue that <qImHa'>'s
gloss is transitive so Marc Okrand obviously goofed in glossing <qIm>, don't
bother. You already did. I wasn't convinced then.) So intransitive use of
<qIm> is safe. Transitive use is either wrong or at best unknown.
If anyone has a hankering to use <qIm> transitively, may I recommend a
wonderful verb made especially for you? <buS>! For all your transitive
concentration needs. Use only as directed.
Qermaq