tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 07 12:33:55 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qum
ngabwI':
> >Why not {maHvaD Qum ngabwI'}?
> >Isn't the object of {Qum} supposed to be the thing communicated (idea, word,
> >coordinates, love of chickens, etc.), or I am missing something?
Maybe in English, but we don't know whether {Qum} "communicate" can take an
object in Klingon.
Quvar BG:
>This is an interesting question to seriously consider. I'll let someone
>else answer this.
Okrand has used the verb {Qum} twice:
jIQum
I communicate. (STC:KLS)
naDev bIQumqa' 'e' vItul.
(untranslated, st.klingon 11/1996)
Based solely on these two examples, one could argue that {Qum} describes an
activity such as "sleep", which doesn't take an object in either
language. We need more examples before we can make a determination whether
{Qum} is transitive.
--
Voragh "Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon
- that's
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons hard!" (Montgomery
Scott, STIV)