tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 27 21:11:56 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja'pu' lay'tel SIvten:
> The only objects of {ghaj} I found are: batleH, joQ, tlham, nIn,  
> Hov, pegh, De' pegh, pIch, and butlh.  The word {HoSghaj} implies  
> that {HoS}
> may have been an object.  While some of these objects are abstract  
> (pIch, pegh, De' pegh, tlham, ?HoS), none is an event.

jIja'pu':
> Nor are any a food, or a vehicle, or a person.  I don't see that as a
> reason to restrict us from saying {be'nI' vIghaj} or {chatlh
> vIghaj}.  What about an event would disqualify it from being the
> object of a verb?

ja' lay'tel SIvten
> Food, vehicles, and people are all concrete and thus irrelevant to a
> discussion about abstract objects.

I thought we were talking about what specific objects {ghaj} can  
have.  You've already documented its use with both concrete and  
abstract objects, so I don't think distinguishing between them is  
relevant to the discussion.

Is your only reason for shying away from {wanI' ghaj} the fact that  
it's never been seen in canon?  I'm not that conservative.  There are  
probably better verbs in such a case -- {SIQ} or {tIv}, perhaps --  
but {ghaj} does not strike me as wrong.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level