tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 11 09:54:03 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: transitivity

DloraH ([email protected])

• From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: transitivity
• Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:53:45 -0600
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Thread-index: AcYWzqX0CrMuCJ4ERWumUk190PIiRAACLqfA

> >And what do you do about
> > {yIn} "to live"? Judging 
> > from what Okrand has said in previous interviews,
> > {yIn} is underlyingly 
> > bivalent, although in practice the "object" of the
> > action is hardly ever 
> > expressed. It could be argued that any non-stative
> > verb in Klingon is 
> > theoretically able to take an object (including such
> > fundamental 
> > "intransitives" as {Qong} and {yIt}).
> > 
> 
> I don't follow this.  When did Okrand say that {yIn}
> is bivalent?  Why do you say that any non-stative can
> take an object? For that matter, why do you call
> {Qong}
> a non-stative?

He signed my KGT [tlhIngan yIn DayIn].  I don't remember now what he said
afterwards, but I remember taking it as a hint that this was not completely
grammatical but /could/ be said.


DloraH

• References:
  • Re: transitivity
    • From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: walk two miles
• Next by Date: RE: walk two miles
• Previous by thread: Re: transitivity
• Next by thread: Re: transitivity
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level