tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 07 00:30:52 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan Hol wot buvmey
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan Hol wot buvmey
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 00:30:13 -0700
- Importance: Normal
lab tuv'el:
>nuqDaq tlhIngan Hol wot buvmey tetlh naQ vISuqlaH?
>
>"Where could I find a comprehensive list of Klingon
> verb classifications?"
>
>Does anyone know if there is a list available that shows which
>verbs are transitive or intransitive, and which verbs can or
>cannot take objects, require subjects etc.
The short answer is "no". We know that some verbs cannot take objects, some
do take objects, and some "express a state or quality". The trouble is, we
do not know definitively which categories all the verbs fit into. Marc has
never categorized all the verbs in this manner, and most likely never will.
For many verbs, we have examples from canon that tell us the answer, or at
least part of it. For many, the answer is obvious from the definition.
Unfortunately, there are quite a few that we simply don't know enough about
to tell for certain. The best we can do is guess and be prepared to be
proved wrong later. This often leads to long fights - er, discussions - on
the list.
Most everyone who's been around and active for a while maintains his own
dictionary and includes all sorts of notes on this sort of thing. The best
thing you can probably do is start one of your own.
One of the attractions of Klingon over other languages is that we are all
pioneers. We don't have the extensive references that common natural
languages have, and we certainly don't have any native speakers to consult.
We get to explore the bounds of a language in ways that nobody else has ever
done. Pretty cool, huh?
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian