tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 19 11:34:38 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Quj bej Holtej qorDu'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Quj bej Holtej qorDu'
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:34:31 CDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 19 May 1998 07:43:38 -0700
> DIch vIghajbe'. I think you have a valid question; one I've
> wondered many times already. "Be near" does seem ripe for an
> object, though it is one of those verbs beginning with "be". It
only in English though; in German, if it takes an object (seldomly
used these days), this object is not in the Accusative case but
in the Dative case (I'm not sure whether this alone makes it an
Indirect Object, but it makes the verb intransitive); in French
you have to use the partitive, which again makes the verb intransitive.
Therefore I'd vote for {Sum} to be intransitive. It's enough that
the English fuzziness about transitivity of verbs like "move"
complicates the interpretation of their Klingon translations.
Let's not make verbs that are translated with "be ..." similarly
complicated.
> of any other verb that does this, except perhaps for the {lo'}
> and {lo'laH} split, which is resolved by calling {lo'laH} a
> separate, independant verb.
>
which reminds me of another question I had: doesn't this make
{lo'laHghach} a verb+{-ghach} without any intervening suffix?
wouldn't it be better to say there are two verbs {lo'}, one
meaning "uses" and the other meaning "is used"? then {lo'laH}
can be analysed as "can be used" = "is useful" = "is valuable"
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]