tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 16 16:09:08 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' veb / Hov leng muchmey
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qep'a' veb / Hov leng muchmey
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:11:51 -0500
- Importance: Normal
Clayton Rodrigo Cardoso:
> jIHvaD tlhIngan Hol QIchmey 'angbogh 'op Hov leng
> muchmey'e' ngu'laH'a' vay'?
Hov leng much'a' wej, vagh, jav neH vIchup. Hov leng
jav QIch QaQ law' Hoch QaQ puS 'e' vIQub. Christopher
Plummer (cheng Sa') yIqIm. qabbe' Hov leng wej QIch,
'ach loQ jum pab, chu'mo' tlhIngan Hol.
> pab vuD: why people in this list tend to assume that a verb is
> intransitive when Marc Okrand doesn't show its regency
> explicity? I don't agree with the use of (-Daq jIjeS) because
> it sounds like a word-by-word translation from English.
I think it's because MO (sometimes? usually?) specifies that a
word is transitive when it is. For example,
{lIch} "pour (into/onto)"
{Haq} "perform surgery (on)"
So, one might expect {jeS} to be *"participate (in)" if that were
indeed the case. On the other hand, MO's notation isn't really
consistent. It's might be safer to assume that it's intransitive
because usually transitive verbs can be used intransitively but
not vice versa.
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]